Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELL: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he was now able to state what arrangements had been made to secure a reduction of the passage rates from this country to Canada with a view to facilitating the settlement of British emigrants in that country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I am glad to say that the Government has reached an agreement with the British steamship lines for the quotation of a special rate for British subjects normally resident in Great Britain and Northern Ireland proceeding from this country to Canada for the purpose of residing permanently in that Dominion. Under normal conditions the ocean rate for third class passengers from Great Britain to Canada is£18 15s., but under the agreement just concluded between the Government and the British steamship lines such passengers who are British subjects normally resident in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be enabled to proceed to Canada at the rate of£10, the difference between the normal rate and the special rate being absorbed by the Government and the steamship lines on an agreed basis. The arrangement will come into operation on the 1st January next, and in order to
give it a fair trial it is necessary to wake it for a period of two years. On this point also the Government and the steamship lines have been able to reach an understanding.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Who bears the cost of the difference between the£10 and the£18?

Mr. AMERY: It is borne jointly by the steamship companies and the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELL: Does that affect the£2 passage rate for families going on to the land?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. The£2 passage rate for agricultural families going on to the land remains unaffected.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would there be a reduction for a party going out, not necessarily a family, but a number of men, and perhaps their dependants going together?

Mr. AMERY: Yes; this reduced fare applies to any British migrant whether going singly or in a family or in a party.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will there be no further reduction for a party?

Mr. AMERY: No. I am not sure whether there is not some proportionate reduction for children, but there are no special terms for parties.

Commander WILLIAMS: Will the Canadian Government bear any portion of the cost, or will our share be borne entirely by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. AMERY: This is entirely an arrangement between the British Government and the steamship companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Overseas Trade Bill): Mr. Tinne; and had appointed in substitution: Major Hills.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress 6th December].

Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.

CLAUSE 4.—(Sale of the Imperial Transatlantic cable undertakings.)

Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out the words
on such terms as the Treasury may approve,
and to insert instead thereof the words
at a price not less than two million five hundred thousand pounds.
My chief object in moving this Amendment is to expose the gross inequality which exists between the treatment of the Government property in cables and that of the private companies. In the answers to the speeches that have been made upon similar Amendments in Committee both the Postmaster General and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have referred to "debt." What we are concerned with are the assets of the Government. The term "debt" is misapplied. We pay a certain sum for laying a Cable and we pay afterwards so much per year on that sum. After a few years we have a certain sum left, as is the case now. This is being regarded as a debt, both by the Imperial Conference and by the Government. It is quite a mistaken term to talk about a debt when this amount of money represents far bigger assets than are shown by the debt. Let us take the comparison with the private companies. When a private company lays down a cable or anything else, it has share capital to cover the cost, and it also includes a certain amount for working expenses. The whole of that money is regarded as being equivalent to the assets concerned. That idea must be kept in mind when we are dealing with these Government assets in cables.
I maintain that it is misleading the public to talk about debts in connection with a sum of money that represents only a very small proportion of the amount of the assets. What we desire to know exactly is, what are the Government assets in these properties? Much has been said both by the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury and the Postmaster-General about this matter. In trying to estimate the value of Government property in cables, it has been definitely stated that we have to take account of the future prospects of these particular properties. If that is true regarding Government property, it is also true regarding the property of the private companies. We want to bring out in this Debate the difference in the treatment of the two properties, so far as the Conference and the Government are concerned. Let me come to the actual figures regarding the Imperial Atlantic Cables. There are two cables. One of them was procured from Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. What the actual cost of that cable was I do not know. It was laid between 1901 and 1903. We paid for it£1,480,000. Obviously the actual cost was very much higher than that. The other cable was laid in 1874—a long time ago. But we have to recognise that also in the property of the private cables of the Eastern Telegraph Company, there are cables which have been laid for many years. The second cable was bought from an American company for£570,000. The two properties together represent a cash payment of£2,050,000.
I want to get a comparable figure with the capitalised expenditure of the Eastern Telegraph Company. That is why I have put in the Amendement the figure£2,500,000. I treat that as the capitalised cost, though the capitalised cost is of course very much more. Let me come to the comparable figure in order that we may be in a position to criticise when we are being referred to the capital involved in the Eastern Telegraph Company. That capital is£9,000,000. I am not speaking of the market value of the shares, but of the capital value of the firm. The£9,000,000 includes an amount of money invested by the firm for the laying of the cables and other works in connection with that company. If we take£9,000,000 as the capital expenditure we ask how that sum has been treated by the Conference, by the experts and by the Government.
This Communications Company has, if one may put it that way, a capital of£30,000,000. How much of that£30,000,000 is to be credited to the Eastern Telegraph Company? I should
have said perhaps£12,000,000 or£13,000,000 but on studying the report a little more closely I have come to the conclusion that it will be a higher figure than that, possibly£16,000,000 or£17,000,000. At any rate it means that for every£100 invested in the cables at the time the cables were laid they are to receive more than double. Accordingly you have this position. For the Imperial Atlantic Cables which are Government property representing a capital outlay actually of£2,050,000, a property whose assets at any rate were£2,500,000, we are to receive from the Communications Company a matter of£450,000, or between one-fifth and one-sixth of the actual capital outlay. On the other hand when we come to the case of the Eastern Telegraph Company we find that they are going to receive more than double their original outlay—as far as one can reckon it up—from this£30,000,000 Communications Company. It is that unequal treatment to which I object. That is a gross injustice.
We have in this transaction four properties—the Marconi, the beam wireless owned by the Government, the Eastern Telegraph Company, and the Government property in the Atlantic cables. What we are doing is this. This Communications Company includes a large holding for the Marconis, and a large holding for the Eastern Telegraph Company, but the British property both in beam and cables, is put on a different footing. One is to be sold at one-fifth of the capital value, and the other held on one side for a nominal sum per year; and the great benefits of this service are to go into the pockets of the people who are credited with£30,000,000 of capital.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it the Government is in no way responsible for the arrangements between the Marconi Company and the cable companies. The hon. Member can only bring that in as evidence of value in relation to the price. He cannot criticise the Government for the transactions which the Marconi Company and the cable companies have had between themselves.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect I put it to you Sir that in the report of the Conference, on which this Bill is based, a considerable
amount of space is devoted to agreements between the companies concerned and evidence is adduced to show that the resulting company will be substantial and so on. I suggest it is open to my hon. Friend to deal with that point.

The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the report. We are discussing the price of the Imperial Transatlantic cable undertakings. Of course, an hon. Member may bring up evidence of value, but transactions as between these other different companies cannot be argued on their merits.

Mr. WELLOCK: I accept that Ruling, and it was not my intention to discuss the merits of these transactions. My only point is the inequality of the treatment as between the Government properties and the private properties. Having brought out that point, I simply want to emphasise the fact that the feeding of these various companies that are involved in this scheme is to come from the Government property in beam. We must not forget that fact from first to last. It is no good weeping over the past losses of the cable companies, either Government or private. We know they are going to lose in the future. That is how this transaction has come about, but it is our property in beam wireless which is going to make up for those losses, and the tragedy is that we are to receive, as a solid payment, one-fifth of the actual worth of our property—about one-fifth of the original outlay—whereas the others have been credited with double the original outlay and are going to be saved with the dividends of the beam wireless. That shows that as far as these other properties are concerned, a very high estimate is put on the beam wireless.

The CHAIRMAN: The beam wireless has nothing to do with the price at which the Transatlantic cables are to be sold.

Mr. WELLOCK: I submit that the beam wireless has a good deal to do with the price because it is on the estimated amount of profit to be made out of the beam wireless that this entire transaction arises. Our grievance is that we are not going to have the benefit of the profits of the beam to the same extent as the private company. We are paid a small sum, and we clear out, and the beam wireless is to feed with dividends,
companies that are really in private hands. I want the Minister not merely to talk about rates and prospects of trade in this matter, but to make a comparison between the treatment of the Government holdings and cables and the treatment of the private cables.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. This Amendment deals with the sale price of the cables. The bargain, if so it may be called, was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland assisted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Evidently the criticisms offered by hon. Members are to be answered by the Postmaster-General. Now the Postmaster-General in this matter will simply sign on the dotted line; and I submit that the presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is aboslutely necessary if the Amendment is to be properly discussed.

The CHAIRMAN: No point of Order arises. I may point out that the Clause provides that
the Postmaster-General may sell to the Communications Company "—
not the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The price was fixed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and not by the Postmaster-General.

The CHAIRMAN: The Clause provides that
the Postmaster-General may sell … on such terms as the Treasury may approve.
For all we know that may be something quite different from what the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would do.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I have listened to what the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) has had to say in moving his Amendment, and I think it would be convenient that I should say something at once with regard to this question of the price to be paid for the Imperial cables, The figures, I agree, are extremely difficult to follow, but the hon. Member built up a case from a set
of figures that are so grotesquely wrong that it is as well that I should let the Committee have the correct figures. I am bound to add that I have derived a certain amount of quiet amusement in watching the dialectic antics which the hon. Members opposite are compelled to perform. At one moment they argue that the beam wireless is so valuable that the cables are worth little or nothing, and then they move an Amendment to support which it is complained that the price which we are getting for the cables ought to be five times what it is. However, I will let that pass and come to the question of the price.
Let me tell the hon. Members opposite that I am prepared to stand here, both as a Minister and as a business man, and defend the price of£450,000 for the Imperial cables as being a very proper price and a satisfactory bargain for His Majesty's Government in Great Britain, and when I have done I shall be very surprised if the hon. Members opposite do not agree. Let me explain further that in the case of the Imperial cables, unlike that of the Pacific cables or the West India cables, there are no complications from the presence of any other interests than those of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. We are the sole owners, and there are no complications. We have the sole responsibility, and I have to defend the price. Further, let me add that there is no question of debt. There are no debts. The cables are in our books absolutely clear and standing without any debts owing to anyone.
Perhaps I had better explain to the Committee, in the first place, that there are two different cables involved, one an ex-German cable and the other a cable known as the D.U.S. cable, that is the Direct United States cable, which was bought by His Majesty's Government. The ex-German cable was taken over after the Armistice as part of the reparations. It used to run from Emden, by way of the Azores, to New York, and it was diverted by way of Penzance and the Azores to Halifax. At this point I ought to say that there are really three relevant questions in regard to value, and three only, and the first is only relevant in a comparatively minor degree. The first question is, what did
His Majesty's Government in Great Britain actually pay in hard cash for the cables? The second question is, What are the cables worth to His Majesty's Government in Great Britain as revenue earners now? And the third question is, What are they likely to be worth to the Communications Company as part of the merger? I will try to answer those three questions as well as I can.
I have explained that the German cable, running as it did from Emden, was diverted to run from Penzance and to terminate in Halifax, instead of New York. What we actually paid for that cable, and what appeared to the credit of Germany in the reparations account, was£450,000. In addition to that, there falls to be debited to the capital account the cost of diversion, which was£173,000, so that the total cost in cash of that cable to His Majesty's Government was£623,000. Cable No. 2, the ex-Direct United States cable, was bought in 1920 as a standby, as an alternative cable, and it was bought at a time of rather high prices. It runs from Halifax, Harbour Grace, to Penzance. There used to be an American section going on to Rye Beach, but that was dropped. What we actually paid for that cable was£570,000, less£125,000 worth of stock cable, which we took over as part of the bargain. The net cost to us, therefore, of this cable B, or cable No. 2, was£445,0010. Now£445,000 and£623,000 together make£1,068,000, and that is the first cost to His Majesty's Government of these two cables.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge and the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) have both had their attention somewhat distracted from this figure of£1,068,000 by an apparently much higher figure, because if they look at the commercial accounts of the Post Office, they will find that the prime cost of these two cables is put at£2,175,000, but that is not the prime cost to His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. That is what the two cables originally cost to the German Government in the one case and to the Direct United States Company in the other when the cables were laid down.

Mr. WELLOCK: That is good enough for us!

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The respective figures were that the German cable originally cost Germany£935,000, and the other cable originally cost the Direct United States Company£1,240,000, making a total of£2,175,000.

Mr. WELLOCK: That justifies this Amendment.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is from that figure that the depreciation ought to be written off. Of course, there has to be written off depreciation, and the method on which it is written off is a method settled long ago on the advice of the Government actuaries of the day and of financial authorities. It is to take the physical life of the cable, and then depreciation is written off every year so as to distinguish the cost in the books at the end of the assumed physical life of the subject. That is an extremely difficult thing to do in this case, because, as a matter of fact, the German cable was comparatively new, but the D.U.S. cable has been patched and patched and patched, and parts are, I believe, more than 50 years old. But, as a matter of fact, the figure at which the cable stood in the books at 31st March—I make the hon. Member opposite a present of this figure—was not£770,000, as he said, but£924,000.
That brings me to the second question, which is the really relevant question, and that is, What are these cables in fact worth to His Majesty's Government in Great Britain as revenue earners today? The answer is that they are worth minus quantities. There has been no profit on these cables since 1921. On the first two years' working of the cables, there was a profit, but after the second cable was bought in 1921 there was no profit on the commercial account. The average annual deficit for the last four years, after providing for depreciation and interest, has been£37,627, and last year, owing to the beam competition, the operating revenue did not in fact cover depreciation, let alone anything for interest at all.
How is it then that the Communications Company are prepared to pay£450,000 for the cables? Let me explain how that is. There is a reason, and a very practical reason. The Communications Company as part of a large system with world-wide operations owning these
cables as portions of a number of alternative routes either by wireless or cable to the Antipodes, is in quite a different position from the Post Office owning nothing but two cables running across the Atlantic. The cables as part of a world's system may be, as I say, of considerable use to the Communications Company, because in case of any interruption of the cables, say, on the eastern route occurring at one of the times when wireless is impossible—and that is not infrequent—they would have an alternative route by way of the Atlantic. There is a certain substantial traffic of about£140,000 annually carried on these two trans-Atlantic cables, but the great difference between the position of the Communications Company and the position of the Post Office is that it will not be necessary for the Communications Company to maintain two cables.
The whole trouble with the Post Office has been the necessity of maintaining a second cable. The Post Office was put, rightly or wrongly, into this business after the Armistice, when the German cable was acquired as part of the Armistice terms, but it is impossible to conduct any business with only one cable in case of breakdown. It is, therefore, necessary to have a stand-by cable, and that is the reason why the second cable was bought, and the expense of the second cable and the amount spent on repairs for that cable have been very largely the reason for the accretion of these enormous deficits year by year on the working of the Imperial Cables. The Communications Company, I have little doubt, although I have no reason for saying what their views will be, or, indeed, what the view of the Advisory Committee may be, will probably drop the working of the second cable altogether, because their stand-by consists of their cable going east-about instead of west-about. Our only stand-by with the ex-German cable was the Direct United States cable.
The question, therefore, is, what is the German cable, standing by itself, without the necessity of having to maintain the expensive mending of the Direct United States cable, likely to be worth as a revenue earner to the Communications Company? That is the only question to which the Conference had to apply their
minds, and they came to the conclusion, after having the best advice they could possibly obtain, that it might be assumed that the possible net revenue of the Communications Company would be£45,000 a year from one cable, without the necessity of maintaining the other. What we are getting, in fact, is 10 years' purchase at£45,000, instead of an annual deficit, which, for the last four years, has been£37,000. Last year it was£40,000 and this year it is likely to be a great deal more. Take it another way round. My right hon. Friend capitalises it at about 5 per cent. I will be even more modest and capitalise it at 4¾ per cent., at which it represents a perpetual revenue to His Majesty's Government of£21,375, and that is more than these cables have earned before charging interest in any year since 1923–24. That, from my point of view as a business proposition, is good enough, and I am prepared to defend it purely from the business and economic point of view. For that reason, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. W. BAKER: It is impossible to discuss this matter effectively in view of the Rules of Procedure. As a matter of fact, this subject must be viewed as a whole. It is quite absurd to endeavour to prove that this is a good commercial transaction as far as the Government are concerned, if we have no regard at all to the history of the subject, and if we have no regard to the extraordinary price at which the Beam is being presented to the company.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is hardly fair of the hon. Gentleman to enlarge on that, because I have already told the Committee that were it not for the fact that the Committee were stopped from considering that question under the ruling of the Chair, I should be prepared to justify the price of the Imperial Cables and the price we are getting for the Beam. I am quite prepared to say that I can justify those figures to the Committee if I am allowed to do so.

Mr. BAKER: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is so ready to express the view that it is an unfair argument. I submit respectfully that this matter can only be judged as one transaction, and we are in the unfortunate position, as a
result of the Government's action, that we cannot consider all the parts of the transaction in the present discussion. If we are to discuss this question of Imperial Cables aright, we must start off by remembering that the all-Red route was not a commercial transaction. The great Imperialists of the Conservative party wanted an all-Red route from certain high motives. They did not embark on this business to make money, and to speak of the scrapping of this as a commercial transaction is to put their patriotism and Imperialism on a very low level. I contend that if there was so much anxiety to secure the German cable, we should like an explanation as to why the desire to retain that cable has so rapidly evaporated. But the complaint we make, and which we have not been able to convey to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, is that, on the Postmaster-General's own showing, a Government cable standing in, the commercial accounts of the Post Office at a figure which was, I think,£770,000, subject to depreciation, is to be handed over to the company for£450,000.
Let us take the simple point. Something which stands in the commercial accounts at£700,000 is to be handed over for£450,000. What is happening to the cables which do not belong to the Government? They are not going into the Communications Company on any such basis; they are not even looked at as assets which are an encumbrance and a burden, as things which have been in existence so long that the Communications Company ought to be able to get rid of them. That is not the position at all. If I am correctly informed, while the Government cables are being thrown into this pool at the lowest possible price, the cables which are privately-owned are being taken into the Communications Company on the basis of the shareholding in those companies. I do not know whether that is regarded as a substantial criticism, but it appeals to me, and I fail to understand why such an argument fails to appeal to the right hon. gentleman, and to his business friends.
When discussing this matter yesterday, I referred—and I only took it as an illustration, because the accounts of the cable companies are so much more cornDlicated—I referred to the case of the
Marconi Company as an illustration of what is happening with the privately-owned assets. The Marconi Company, with an issued share capital of less than£2,500,000, is to receive in shareholdings in the new concern shares to the extent, of£17,350,000. That is not the basis on which the Government assets are being treated, and I should have little to say on this point if the same standard had: been applied to both assets. There may be a case for the Government, but I have not yet heard or seen it. I do not believe that any hon. Gentlemen opposite can justify creating a fusion of this character and treating the two sides in such a disproportionate way. That is not the whole case. As has been repeatedly stated, the important thing is that this merger is alleged to have risen with the cable companies. The Report which has been presented to us definitely states that, when the Imperial Conference met, the merger was already in process of formation, and that the merger laid down the definite condition that it would only take place provided the Government gave over its valuable beam assets.
They are the things which we have to remember. The cable companies admitted that they could not live against the Government competition, and yet if you look at the Report, on the basis of which the various shares are to be allocated, you will find that the defeated private cable companies, the people who were so beaten by Government competition that they threatened to scrap their cables or sell them to our rivals overseas—these people not only get the Government assets for a mere song, but have actually secured financial control in the Communications Company. We have the remarkable situation that the private cable companies, who clearly stated that they could not continue, and threatened either to scrap their undertakings, pay out their reserves to their shareholders, or sell the undertakings to our foreign competitors, have secured control over the rising wireless business against which they could not possibly hope to live in open competition.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: A public scandal!

Mr. BAKER: I say that it is an amazing thing, viewed from every
possible angle, and I should like an explanation of why the Government have agreed to a fusion of this character, in which these assets are taken in on an entirely different basis from the privately owned cable companies.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) on the case which he has made. It is an overwhelming case, and no attempt has been made to answer it. It is very remarkable that during yesterday's Debates, the only speech which we had in defence of the Government was from the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), and that was that we are reducing our cable repairing fleet to one vessel—which for a naval officer was a remarkable argument. The only other defence came from the Chief Whip of the Liberal party. I protest against the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; it is not treating the House with respect that these two Ministers, who were responsible for this bargain, and made these arrangements, should be absent. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Secretary of State has gone to Scotland."] If he has an important public engagement, I can understand it, but where is the Financial Secretary? Has he gone to Scotland? These two Ministers should really be here, because they made the bargain, and although the Postmaster-General gallantly and stoutly defends it, he had no more to say in the matter than merely to add his signature.
The Postmaster-General was very frank, and he said that he was quite sure that I would agree that a very good bargain has been made. I am sorry that, although I admired his ingenuity and his loyalty to his party, I was not convinced. I will give the figures which have driven me to this conclusion. We are selling these cables, two of them, for under£500,000. It should be noted that when D.U.S., the Halifax to Penzance cable, was taken over in 1920, we paid£570,000 less£125,000 for stock cable. Whoever made that bargain was quite prepared to pay£125,000 for an old cable, which was only part of the system that was taken over, and received this
stock in place of good money. That was the valuation at which it was taken in the Post Office accounts. That was only one of the two, and the cost of the two cables was£1,060,000. I should like to know how much has been spent in upkeep by the Post Office and the cable company. It is obvious that a great deal has been spent in upkeep, because it is not contended that these cables are not in an efficient condition. The right hon. Gentleman will not say that they have not been kept in first class working order, that all repairs have not been carried out, all renewals not made and the latest instruments not installed. If the Post Office have not done this, I can understand why they have made no profits. Either these cables have been kept up in a modernised and efficient condition, in which case they have been sold at scrap prices, or they have been let down and that accounts for the lack of profits. It must be one or the other, and I present the right hon. Gentleman with the horns of the dilemma. On which is he going to sit? Has the Post Office been conserving the country's property by keeping these cables in good order? If they have been kept in good order, a valuable asset has been sold at scrap prices.
I want very much to thank the right hon. Gentleman for presenting me with an admirable argument when I protest that when we nationalise property in the future we shall have to pay compensation for it. We shall be able to take what is being done here as a basis for that compensation. Some of my friends in my party have argued with me very stoutly, and have frequently overthrown me, on the question of compensation to private owners. I have always said, "You must pay compensation to private owners when in the national interest you take over their property," and the majority of my party agree with me. [Interruption.] Oh yes, that is our policy. It is in our Birmingham proposals. We have been presented to-day with a delightful argument, because we shall now compensate them on the basis of this arrangement. We shall take the straight line of depreciation, of writing down the value of their assets. We are not going to give them the capital cost, we are not going to allow for watered capital.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. and gallant Member cannot develop that argument. He must confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: if the Committee decide by their vote on this Amendment that the Post Office have made a good bargain, it will be an invaluable precedent for us in the future, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has told us.

Mr. MACKINDER: On that point of Order. Are we not allowed to discuss the process which is being adopted in this case, and apply it in argument to future businesses?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Only so far as the remarks are definitely applied to the Amendment before the Committee. It cannot be used as a peg upon which to hang a discussion about a matter with which it has nothing to do.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before we can really say whether the bargain is a good one, we must have the only possible comparison, and that is the value that is put upon a comparable private cable, the Eastern Telegraph and Associated Companies property. Until we can get that figure we have nothing to go on. The Communications Company to whom we are selling this Government property will have its dividend guaranteed up to 6 per cent. out of the profits of the beam wireless service, which we are leasing on very favourable terms to the company. Therefore, the amount of the capital and the number of shares that the Eastern Telegraph Company obtain for their property is of great importance. We have not been told that, and I do ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, who I presume will wind up the Debate on this Amendment, what is the Post Office valuation of the Eastern Telegraph Company's cable property. It is obvious that the Post Office advisers must have had this information, in order to be able to advise the Postmaster-General about this price.
It is a fair request I am making, and we are entitled to the information, because it would enable us to make a fair comparison. All we have in the White Paper is that the Eastern Telegraph
Company will receive 35 per cent. of the ordinary shares, and the Marconi Company 65 per cent.; and they are getting in ordinary shares alone£3,150,000. if that is what is proposed their property is going to be valued at a very high figure indeed, some millions of money, and that affords us a comparison with this price of£450,000 which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted for these two cables, in first class running order, with all the latest improvements, equipped in every way. They are not being sold as old metal, for the value of the copper and the tin, but as a going concern. I have said nothing about goodwill, but there is the trained staff, who have reached a position of fair success after making the ordinary errors which every pioneer business makes. All this ought to come into the valuation, and I say the only fair comparison is what the capitalised value of the Eastern Telegraph Company is going to be in the merger. When we know that we shall know where we are, and until we have those figures I cannot say whether the right hon. Gentleman has convinced me or not. If we are refused information on that point, then I shall think the Government have a very bad bargain and want to cover it up and to mislead the Committee.
12 n.
I did not quite gather what the Postmaster-General said with regard to the company breaking up or allowing to go out of use one of the two cables. One of the arguments of the supporters of the Government on this Bill is that for strategical reasons we must not allow the cables to fall into foreign hands or to die out—in case of some future war. The Postmaster-General told us, if I heard him aright, that one of the two cables would be allowed to go out of use altogether and to rot away. Is that really part of the bargain? Will not this Communications combine have the duty of keeping this property in good working order for strategical purposes? I am sorry that I should have to raise this matter. I always thought the Conservative party were the watch dogs of the Empire where national security was concerned. Are they prepared to allow one of these two vital cables to go out of use? These cables afford a means of communication across the Atlantic
which, we are told, cannot be attacked or intercepted. We are told that cables afford the only means of communication by which secrecy can be maintained, and that the War proved this, and, therefore, that we must at all costs have these cables. Now the Postmaster-General says one of them can be allowed to rot and go out of use. What have our imperialists got to say about that? What has the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir Newton Moore) got to say about that? He is one of the great Empire builders. He was a great pro-Consul in Australia. He has great imperial interests in Newfoundland. What has he got to say about this?

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: There are three others there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are they to be allowed to rot and to go out of use?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what these references have to do with the question of the proper price to pay for these cables.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope to enlist the support of the hon. and gallant Member in protesting against this arrangement. I hope this matter will be reconsidered and that the Postmaster-General will insist that these cables will be kept going for strategical purposes. I hope my words will reach the Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence and that the Prime Minister may be apprised of what I have said, because, if one of these two cables is allowed to go out of use, the whole ground for making this arrangement disappears.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: When the Postmaster-General supplied the necessary evidence to the Gilmour Conference At what price did the Post Office put the cable? Was the price£450,000 for the two cables? Was it not stated in the evidence that£250,000 a year was a reasonable annual rent for the beam? I am not asking whether as a member of the Government the right hon. Gentleman agreed with this contract, but I want to know what evidence the Post Office tendered as to the price that these cables were estimated to be worth. I notice in the reparations account that the German submarine cables were estimated to be
worth 49,000,000 gold marks. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what was the prime evidence given as to the estimated value of these cables.

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: While the capital value of these cables may be a matter of argument, it is an undoubted fact that we have been losing£20,000,£30,000, and£40,000 a year by having to maintain them. Consequently, by the bargain we are now making the State is£60,000 a year to the good.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I want to answer one or two of the questions which have been put to me. I will not repeat what the Postmaster-General has already said, and I shall be content by saying that my right hon. Friend has already shown that the price we are receiving for these two cables is a great deal more than we are able to make out of them at the present time, or that the Post Office has ever been able to make out of them since they were acquired. Therefore, we are well satisfied that we have made a very good bargain by this arrangement. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has asked a number of questions about the direct United States cable, and he asked how much we had spent on the repair and upkeep of that cable.
The hon. and gallant Member did not seem to understand why the Postmaster-General anticipated that the Communications Company might possibly allow this cable to fall into disuse. I understand from the facts which have been supplied to me that we have had to spend£23,000 a year on repairs to this cable. The point is that this particular cable is really worn out or obsolete, and it has been patched and patched in parts during the last 50 years.
The only reason why we bought the cable was to give an alternative route if our No. 1 cable broke down. If you are conducting any cable business, you must satisfy your customers that you are at all times ready to deliver their messages. Occasionally, if a cable breaks down, more especially in the Atlantic, it takes several weeks before it can be repaired. The hon. and gallant Gentle-
man the Member for Central Hull knows very well that you cannot repair cables in rough weather, and it is impossible to conduct a lucrative cable business unless you have alternative channels which you can use in case of a breakdown. It was only for that reason that the Post Office ever bought this cable at all. As long as we were conducting an Atlantic service with no other channel available it was necessary to have this cable, but, financially speaking, it proved a very bad bargain for the Post Office. This particular cable cost a great deal of money to keep in repair, because, after putting in new bits, the old bits were always liable to break. The Communications Company will have other cables to America and Canada, and they will not be liable to this expenditure on repairs which the Post Office at the present time has had to face. This particular cable is worn out.
We have now two competing organisations, and both of them have to have their stand-by. That is an obvious paint in what we call the rationalisation of industry of which I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull is as much in favour as we are. The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) complained that the cables were being sold at half their book value. My reply to that argument would he simply to repeat what the Postmaster-General has already said, namely, that they are being sold at a great deal more than they are able to bring in at the present moment. Therefore, from the point of view of pounds, shillings, and pence, the Post Office has gained a very considerable sum for the taxpayers by disposing of these cables which are not paying.

Mr. AMMON: The Noble Lord has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn). There should be no doubt whatever in the mind of the Committee as to what is involved. The Noble Lord has spoken about the question of the cost of repairs, but this is not a question of obsolete and worn-out cables, because the real value is in the other service which goes with the cables, and the Committee ought to bear that fact in mind. We have been told that this is a non-paying concern, that it is obsolete and needs repair, but that is not the real value of
which we are disposing. This particular cable would have no value at all if it were not for the beam service. I think we have a right to know what is the estimated value of these combined services. When the Noble Lord talks, as he did just now, about our being in agreement with rationalisation, that is an altogether different thing from handing over the whole of the Imperial communications to a private company, who are to perform an essential public service, which they can exploit, as they will, to the detriment of the community as a whole. I would ask the Noble Lord either to say definitely if he is not prepared to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen or to give us an answer, so that the Committee may be in a position to assess exactly what sort of bargain is being made in terms of cash, having regard to the cable itself and to tie added value given to the cable by its association with beam wireless.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can only repeat what I said earlier. I am asked to justify, and I am responsible for justifying, two different proposals, the one the price which it is proposed shall be given for the sale of these cables, and the other the rent that we are receiving for the beam wireless. I have justified to the best of my ability, and I believe I have convinced many people, that, from the commercial, as well as from the Imperial point of view, the price we are getting for the Imperial cables is very satisfactory. I have told the hon. Gentleman and the Committee quite frankly that I should be prepared to justify, and I am satisfied that I can justify up to the hilt, the rent that we are receiving in the case of the beam wireless service—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman cannot do that now.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is exactly what I expected you to say, Mr. Hope. As I am not allowed to do that, all I can say is that the hon. Gentleman must in this case take the will for the deed, and it is not fair of him to turn round and say that, while I have justified the price we are getting for the cables, I have not said anything about the beam wireless. I have expressed my willingness and my confidence in my ability to justify that also.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I trust, Mr. Hope, that you will not so far rule out of order the discussion of this matter that the Postmaster-General will be prevented from giving us the information for which we ask. At this moment the right hon. Gentleman seems to be under that impression, and I think that you, Sir, can clear the matter up. All that we are asking is that the Postmaster-General should give us two figures. They can be easily stated, and it may be that he is right in saying that he can justify the whole of this procedure to the Committee and, ultimately, to the country. If he can, there should be no difficulty at all on his part, and may I submit, Sir, with great respect to you, that there should be no difficulty on your part in allowing him to state those two figures.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is asking me not to rule out of order that which I have been ruling out of order on an average once every 40 minutes since Four o'clock yesterday afternoon. No doubt it will be perfectly in order on the Post Office Estimates, or a special opportunity might be found; but in Committee on Clause 4 of this Bill it is not in order, and I have said so very often.

Mr. HUDSON: Does that mean that on this particular Amendment, which deals specifically with the question of the price of the cable, we may not ask from the Postmaster-General a piece of precise evidence regarding what he has considered ought to be the price of that cable? That is all that we are asking.

The CHAIRMAN: That is what, I gather, the Postmaster-General has answered.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. HUDSON: May I submit, with great respect, that the right hon. Gentleman has been, by certain motions of his head, indicating that you, Sir, are the person responsible for preventing him from telling us what we are asking to know; and I ask you again, Sir, whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the figures that he quoted in the Conference referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr.
Benn), and whether you will permit him to give us those figures for which we have pressed so much. I submit to you, Sir, that it is a very vital issue, and that, unless we can get these facts now, there will be the impression in the country that the Postmaster-General knows that in the past he has given evidence upon this point which is now in conflict with the conclusions that he is wanting the Committee to draw, and that, in order that the Committee may not be properly guided, he is seeking to withhold from us evidence that he formerly gave, and is seeking to bring you into this question.

The CHAIRMAN: That might be the construction put upon the speech of the hon. Member. If the Postmaster-General did say in the Conference what was a fair price for the sale of these cables, there is no reason as a matter of order why he should not give that figure.

Mr. HUDSON: Thank you very much, Sir. I have now great pleasure in giving way to the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that it is quite in order for him to give this figure.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The course which hon. Members opposite are pursuing does not invite me to endeavour to give any fuller reply than I have given, but I have done my very best to put the Committee in possession of all the facts. I am asked what evidence was given by the Post Office at the Imperial Conference, but the hon. Gentleman knows just as well as I do that everything which takes place before an Imperial Conference is private, and, therefore, I must decline to give any other answer. What the Committee are entitled to ask me, on my responsibility as Postmaster-General, and what the House is entitled to ask me when the Bill comes up for Third Reading, is whether I am satisfied, as the responsible person in whom this property is vested—[Interruption]—may I be allowed to try to define to the Committee what I conceive to be my responsibility? I may be wrong, and, if so, it is for hon. Members to show, but my responsibility is to justify to the House of Commons whether the price which I have received for property the control of which is vested in me, is in my
judgment a fair commercial price, and to satisfy the House of Commons that that is so. I have done my best so to do. I say that I am satisfied, both as a Minister and as a commercial man, that His Majesty's Government is making an extremely good bargain in the sale price for these Imperial cables.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think that this is the only Parliamentary procedure that we can now adopt. What is the position? It is that the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people, are being asked to give statutory authority for the disposal of public assets, but are unable to obtain, from the Minister in charge of the Measure which will give that statutory authority, fundamental evidence to enable the representatives of the people to judge whether in fact they are getting a proper price for the public assets which are now being disposed of. It is implicit at any rate in the statement of the Postmaster-General that figures were placed before the Conference, and that information given to

the Conference is being withheld from the representatives of the people before they come to their judgment as to whether a fair price is being obtained for public assets. That position is intolerable. We have always taken the view in this country that there ought never to be any taxation without representation, but the disposal of public assets at a price which is not commensurate with their real value and without information is, in effect, taxing the people without adequate representation. From that point of view we are bound to take the only course that is open to us in Parliamentary procedure, and move to report Progress, so that the Postmaster-General may, if he feels bound to do so, get proper executive permission from the Governments concerned to reveal to the elected representatives of the people what was the price originally estimated by the Government as being the value of these assets.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The. Committee divided: Ayes. 98, Noes, 190.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[12.26 p.m.


Adannson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bellamy, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Benn, Wedgwood
Kennedy. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Briant, Frank
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Broad, F. A.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan. G.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Longbottom, A. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mackinder, W.
Vlant, S. P.


Compton, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Cove. W. G.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Day, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Dunnlco, H.
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby. Arthur
Windsor. Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hardie. George D.
Sexton, James
Whiteley.


NOES.


Amery, Rt. Hon Leopold C. M. S.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Balnlel, Lord


Applin. Colonel R. V. K.
Atholl, Duchess of
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Baldwin, Rt, Hon. Stanley
Barnett, Major Sir Richard


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major G.


Bennett, A. J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pennefather, Sir John


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Betterton, Henry B.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Brass, Captain W.
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Fllnt)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil


Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rye, F. G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon, Lord


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthberl
Savery, S. S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Clavton. G. C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Courtauid, Major J. S.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig. Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Loder, J. de V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Looker, Herbert William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, Or. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Drewe, C.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Elliot. Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ellis. R. G.
Macintyre, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Everard. W. Lindsay
Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace. Captain D. E.


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Forestier-Walker, sir L.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Water house, Captain Charles


Forrest, W.
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meller. R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Withers, John James


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grant, Sir J. A.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nelson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hn.sir H. (W'th's'w. E)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Major Sir William Cope and Mr.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
F. C. Thomson.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Postmaster-General has not answered my question about the value put upon the property of the Eastern Telegraph Company by the Post Office experts. It is necessary that we should have that so that we can make some comparison. Before we can say the bargain is a good one we ought to know what the merger company is going to take into capital account for the value of the company's
property. The Postmaster-General must have given some advice. We are told these cables are worth a mere bagatelle —£500,000. What value is going to be allowed for the private cables in the Pacific? That is a very fair question. It will make a very interesting comparison. If the Postmaster-General refuses to answer, we can only draw our own conclusions.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 98.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
12.36 p.m.


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson,Col.Rt.Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astbury, Lieut. -Commander F. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Owen, Major G.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Pennefather, Sir John


Athoil. Duchess of
Gulnness, Rt. Han. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston. Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pliditch. Sir Philip


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, A. J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U,


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Henry B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts E. H. G. (Fllnt)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye. F. G


Brass, Captain W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Skelton. A. N.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smith, R- W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Blrm.,W.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Charteris. Brigadier-General J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Clayton, G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Litter, Cunllffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cockerill, Brlg.-General Sir George
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank,Cpt.H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.' Mitchell


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macintyre, Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Drewe, C.
McLean, Major A.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Edmondson, Major A, J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macquisten. F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ellis. R. G.
Maitland. Sir Arthur D. steel-
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine Lord (Somerset Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells. S. R.


Fenby, T. D.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Merrlman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foster. Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Winterton Rt. Hon. Ear,


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Withers, John James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gates, Percy
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Major Sir William Cope and Mr.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Penny.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.






NOES.


A damson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, Walter
Clynet, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Compton, Joseph
Hardle, George D.


Barnes, A.
Connolly, M.
Hayday, Arthur


Barr, J.
Cove, W. G.
Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, G. H.


Bellamy, A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)


Benn, Wedgwood
Day, Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dunnleo, H.
Jenkins. W. (Giamorgan, Neath)


Briant, Frank
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Broad, F, A.
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buchanan, G.
Gresnall, T.
Kennedy, T.




Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Potts, John S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Lansbury, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lawson, John James
Scrymgeour, E.
Townend, A. E.


Lee. F.
Sexton, James
Vlant. S. P.


Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Welsh, J. C.


Mackinder, W.
Shinwell, E.
Westwood, J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


March, S.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Montague, Frederick
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitbe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Murnin, H.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Naylor, T. E.
Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip
Windsor, Walter


Palin, John Henry
Stamford, T. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Paling, W.
Stephen, Campbell



Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Whiteley.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BENN: As the Secretary of State for Scotland is now present, I venture, even though it is only as a matter of form, to repeat the questions which we put on the Amendment which was attempted to be made to the Clause. I may say for the benefit of hon. Members who did not follow the Amendment that the situation is this: We are not to be told—in fact, the information is being specifically refused by the Postmaster-General—as to what value the Post Office themselves set upon the Atlantic cables which we are selling for£450;000. Some value was set on them by the Post Office, and it was tendered in evidence before the Conference over which the Secretary of State for Scotland presided. We do not know the figure. We have asked for it, and we cannot get it. Moreover, some reasonable value for the annual lease of the beam service was also tendered in evidence before the Conference presided over by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We do not know what was the value set by the Post Office on this new installation.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member surely must realise that he must not put that question, as I have repeatedly ruled.

Mr. BENN: On a proper occasion, I should like to ask for your Ruling on that matter, because the title of this Bill—and every Clause is only just one variety of the main purpose of the Bill—is
to authorise the sale of telegraphic undertakings.

The CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member implicitly admitted, this is not a proper occasion.

Mr. BENN: I have not the least desire to attempt to challenge the Ruling of the Chair on immaterial points, but it is quite obvious that the price of the beam is a very material fact in regard to the bargain, particularly having regard to the Preamble, which is
to authorise the sale of telegraph undertakings established under the Pacific Cable Acts, the West Indian Islands (Telegraph) Act and of certain submarine undertakings in the possession of the Postmaster-General and to make provision for certain matters incidental thereto.
The most important consideration is the price of the Beam. I have a sincere desire to observe the rulings of the Chair, and I simply say that these figures are known to the Postmaster-General. They are the assessments put by our own technical experts upon the national property, and they are known not only to the Postmaster-General but to the Secretary of State for Scotland, neither of whom will disclose the true figure to this House. Therefore, we are left to form our own conclusions. I say that the price put on these assets by the Post Office was far higher than the price which we are getting, and I say, further, that the Post Office was opposed to the sale of the Beam and cable services on these terms. I assert, and it is commonly believed, the "Times" newspaper, is of the opinion, that this bargain from the Post Office point of view is a bad bargain. So long as we cannot get the information which we desire, we are entitled to assert that our statements are true, and because they are true the two Government officials concerned cannot deny it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: are the Postmaster-General and the Secretary of State for Scotland in a position to make up their minds to give us, say, an
estimate or the agreed price of the final capitalisation of the Eastern Telegraph Company's assets. Can we not have that?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this Clause.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Only as a comparison. The Noble Lord told us that it was very important for the Communications Company to have the Atlantic Cables as an alternative to their east-bound route. Can we not have the inflated value, the monopoly value of the Eastern Telegraph Company's assets? Otherwise, we cannot tell whether this is a good bargain or not. That information is being withheld, and it is a part of this very questionable business, from beginning to end.

Mr. W. BAKER: I have no wish to delay the Committee, but I have very little hope that my appeal will be listened to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Postmaster-General has definitely refused to tell us what he put before the Imperial Conference. He has refused my request for an official explanation as to the remarkable difference in the treatment of the Government's assets and the assets of the private cable companies. There is, surely, no breach of confidence in asking the Postmaster-General to deal with that point. Seeing that the Postmaster-General has declined to deal with the matters which have been submitted to him by my colleagues, I must take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he, in his position at the head of the Imperial Conference, and with his close and intimate knowledge of the matter, will justify the different basis on which the Government assets in the shape of cables are being taken into this fusion, as compared with the basis on which the cables belonging to the private companies are being taken over. During this morning I have endeavoured to show that there is no comparison between the methods employed in the two different cases. The Government is being badly served in comparison with the private interests, and I would ask that someone should attempt to give an explanation if not an answer to the criticisms which we have made.

Mr. GILLETT: One unsatisfactory feature in connection with this business is the treatment of the assets of the merger company as compared with the Government's assets. The details of the merger company do not come before us for decision, because they are private arrangements which have been made between the firms who are to form the merger company as to the terms on which they will come into the amalgamation. I will deal particularly with the position of the Eastern and Associated Cable and Telegraph Companies. The allocation of their capital in the new Company, under the arrangement, shows that of the 5½ per cent. cumulative preference stock, the Eastern and Associated Telegraph Companies receive shares to the value of£20,000,000, and of the 7½ per cent. non-cumulative ordinary shares, they receive£13,200,000. Finally, of the "B" ordinary shares, they receive£3,150,000. It is open to discussion whether they have not over-valued their property. When we take these extraordinary figures, hon. Members may say that they have very large reserves, but even allowing for that and taking into account the cables which, according to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, are not a very paying concern, we find that these private companies bring forward figures of this kind for merger purposes, and when we come to the Government concern we find that£250,000 is considered sufficient by the Government for the sale of their undertakings. It seems to me that no business man could come to any conclusion of that sort. We are not told really what are the values of the Government property. We have been given vague insinuations that the Postmaster-General said something at the Conference, but to-day he cannot tell us what he said, because it is private. We may assume that it is not in his interest to tell.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member has no right to say that.

Mr. GILLETT: It is a very simple matter. Surely, if between yesterday and to-day the right hon. Gentleman thought that it was important for the sake of the Government and the country that the information should be made public, he could have taken steps to obtain permission to make the informa-
tion public. If he says to-day that we cannot have that most vital information in order that we may come to a conclusion, we must draw our own inference. When we see these enormous values put upon the assets of the cable companies, we say that there is something wrong somewhere. Either the figures of the merger company are being grossly exaggerated, or the expert opinions given to the Government are wrong. Between the two, for lack of information, it is impossible for the Committee to come to any satisfactory conclusion, and the nation will have to draw its own conclusion.

Mr. J. HUDSON: The Postmaster-General, in dealing with this matter, spoke rather under a sense of irritation. So far as we had any responsibility for that, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has put himself into that position. The statement which he de-clines to give us regarding the price which he formerly assumed the assets of the Government to be worth could not possibly do any harm, if it were made now, to any part of the British Empire. I could well understand that if it was a matter in which some of the Dominions were concerned with ourselves, there might be diffidence about stating the price, particularly if the Dominions were more concerned in it than we were. But there is nothing of that sort in this case, and I submit to the Postmaster-General, who was very indignant with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) for suggesting that he was hiding something in his own interests, that in his own interests, and in view of the fact that no case has been made out for keeping this information secret, that he should give the Committee the information it ought to have.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to prove that there is a case for keeping this information secret. This property is ours, and is ours still; and the public department which has been mainly responsible for it in the past has given the Imperial Conference an estimate of its value. It is in the public interest that we should be told what that estimate was; it is in the Imperial interests also. I submit to the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Dominions
should know. If this discussion concludes without any clear statement being made either by the Secretary of State or the Postmaster-General, distrust will grow not only in this country but throughout the Empire as to the bona fides of the Members of the Government in the statement they made in regard to values of this sort. I press again, with all the emphasis I have, that the Secretary of State should tell us the value which was attached to this property at the time when the Imperial Conference was discussing the question. Unless he can give us this information the Government will be under a very serious cloud of suspicion, and will he accused of knowing that the value of this property is much higher than the value they attach to it at the present moment.

Mr. WELLOCK: I have never witnessed a weaker defence upon any matter than the defence of the Government in regard to this agreement They positively refuse to face the difference in treatment as between the Government holding in cables and the Eastern Telegraph Company's holding in cables. The simple fact is that the Government cables and the Eastern Telegraph Company cables are in the same boat. They are both faced with bankruptcy unless something is done; and the means of salvation is the beam wireless. Yet when it comes to asking what is to be given for these holdings we have a scrap price in regard to the Government cables, but in regard to the Eastern Telegraph Company cables they are credited with—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Government are not responsible for any price or value in regard to the Eastern Telegraph Company. That can only be brought in as an indirect evidence of the value of the other.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. WELLOCK: The point is that dividends are to be provided for the Eastern Telegraph Company from the Government beam wireless, and the same consideration should be given to the Government holding in cables. The treatment which is meted out to the Eastern Telegraph Company should also be meted out to the other. It is because
the Government will not put these properties in the same category that we must oppose this clause.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am genuinely surprised at the attitude which is being taken up by hon. Members opposite. Is it to be suggested that the constitutional practice of holding an Imperial Conference can be legitimately departed from by any Government. The Imperial Conference is composed of representatives of all members of the Empire. There comes before it a mass of evidence, and it has never been the practice, indeed it would be impossible, to make public all she evidence which is considered by the Conference. All kinds of allegations are being made by hon. Members opposite. Suspicion seems to have been bred with great rapidity.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And is being added to every hour.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Evidently, they desire to foster all kinds of allegations against the fair and honest judgment not only of the representatives of His Majesty's Government, but of the rest of the Empire. Let hon. Members opposite realise where they are going by a policy of that kind. It is a most dangerous line of argument for those who aspire to take a place in the government of this country.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No aspersions are being cast on the Dominions.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, undoubtedly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: None whatever.

Sir J. GILMOUR: If there is anything underhand in the decision which the Conference came to or in the proposals which we are submitting to this House it reflects, not only on His Majesty's Government, but also on the representatives of the Dominions.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: You are saying that, not us.

Sir J. GILMOUR: What I wish the Committee to understand quite clearly is that we are concerned here with the price for the sale of certain assets connected with the Imperial cables. The
Conference had the fullest opportunity of forming its own judgment on these questions, and in addition they took the precaution of employing two men most eminently qualified to study and examine all the information—and a great deal of it was confidential—and following upon the advice of these gentlemen the Conference with the full knowledge they had accepted their recommendations, and further, submitted them to their respective governments who, in turn, have agreed to accept it. I think the general public will realise when this Debate is considered that there is nothing underhand, nothing hidden, and that all the circumstances are plain. We are satisfied that the price is fair and just, and I ask the Committee to agree with it.

Mr. AMMON: I think it would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken at all rather than make the speech he has. In the first place, no aspersions have been cast either on the Dominions, on the right hon. Gentleman or on the Postmaster-General, or anybody else concerned in the matter. He has raised up dummies himself and has then proceeded to knock them down. We have not asked for the disclosure of anything which is confidential, which should not be disclosed, but, as the custodians of public property, we have asked for information which is necessary for us to form a judgment as to whether the Government are making a good bargain or not. It is no good the Secretary of State for Scotland waxing indignant about things which have not been said. The right hon. Gentleman's indignation arises from the wretched position in which he finds himself, in having to defend something which he knows is unsound right through. This cable itself—

Mr. BENN: A British cable.

Viscount WOLMER: His Master's Voice.

Mr. AMMON: This cable itself is entirely a British cable, and the Noble Lord opposite is the last man to talk about; "His Master's Voice," having regard to the rebuke which was administered to him not long ago from that very Box—a rebuke which reminded him of his extreme youthfulness, as far as development is concerned. "His
Master's Voice" in this respect seems to be the large financial interests. What we have asked for is no betrayal of any confidence or of any information that ought not to be given; but surely it is fair that we should ask what terms the Government put before the Imperial Conference, so that we might see whether what the Government are to receive is in any way commensurate with the terms laid down. That is not unfair. I wonder whether the Committee have realised the position under this Bill. Here is a Communications Company not yet formed and a price that is not known. We are going to sell something to someone who does not exist for an amount of money that no one knows anything about. All that we ask is, how the Government arrived at that extraordinary figure. The Secretary for Scotland has prolonged the Debate by his speech and has waxed indignant over something which does not exist. That is bound to raise, and he himself is going to raise in the Dominions, a suspicion which has never been suggested from this side, for the right hon. Gentleman has now given the impression to the whole country that there is something to hide, that the Government are afraid to declare their hand in this matter. It is just a simple point that is raised. Did the Post Office or whoever was concerned put figures of purchase before the Conference? What were those figures? We want the information so that we can compare the figures with those that we are now considering.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am astounded at the attitude of Ministers. Apparently, we are not to be told anything that His Majesty's Government have done, when we seek to come to a conclusion on a very important point with reference to the assets of this Company. We have been told that. the Dominions were against holding these things in the hands of the various Governments. Is this a following up of the remarks of the Assistant Postmaster-General some time ago—remarks for which he was most justly rebuked by the Prime Minister? Are the Government going at any cost to hand these things over to private enterprise so that other people may benefit? We took the risk and did everything possible to make the
beam wireless a success. It was made a success, thanks to the Labour party. Now, because it is a success, the Government are going to hand it over, willy nilly, to other people, and they refuse to tell the country what they are doing. We shall do our best to let the country know, and I trust that retribution will come even before the general election.

Miss WILKINSON: The speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland reminded me of the story of the lady in a back street. Her neighbour accused her of stealing her boots, and in reply she forthwith proceeded to give an unvarnished account of her neighbour's relations. There is no doubt whatever that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman does engender a, deep suspicion. I am not objecting very much to the attitude of the Government on this matter, because I have been watching with some interest their back benches. They have an enormous majority and can do exactly as they like. They sit there while this side talks and talks and asks for information, and they are thoroughly pleased with the fact that, whatever happens, they can go on smiling and push through any ramp that they like. Whatever we do, the majority opposite is so huge and so docile that hon. Members seem to regard it as a matter for amusement that they need not give any information, need not obey any of the constitutional usages of this House or observe any of the ordinary courtesies in giving information to the Opposition.
It forms an extraordinary precedent, and I hope that the time is not far distant when those of us who sit on the back benches on the Labour side will be sitting on the back benches opposite, and that we shall have a majority something comparable to that of the present Government. The real joy of life then will be to sit there and smile while cur Labour Government is engaged in taking over the land, the coal mines, the transport and the factories, and other little trifles like that, and when on this side the Conservative party gets up and "raises Cain" in a desire to stop the excellent and beneficent work of nationalising the resources of the country. We shall be able then to sit on the benches opposite and remember the conservative smiles of to-day, and how perfectly lovely it is to reverse what the
present Government is doing—to get a nationalised and stop the sale of national assets, for which the Government is creating a precedent now.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186, Noes, 101.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[1.12 p.m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Pennefather, Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pllditch, Sir Philip


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Bennett, A. J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, J. R.


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rye, F. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe. Richard George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slmms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ilifle, Sir Edward M.
Skelton, A. N.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A. (Blrm.,W.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smithers. Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somervilie, A. A. (Windsor)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Clayton, G. C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craig, sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Culver well, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Looker, Herbert William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davles, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tltchfield, Major the Marquees of


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
Maclntyre, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ellis, R. G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maklns, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J
Wlndsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Withers, John James


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wolmer, Viscount


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Gates, Percy.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bellamy, A.
Cape, Thomas


Baker, Walter
Benn, Wedgwood
Charieton, H. C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bondfleld, Margaret
Cluse, W. S.


Barnes, A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Compton, Joseph


Barr, J.
Brlant, Frank
Connolly, M.


Batey, Joseph
Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Snell, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Wetthoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Stamford, T. W.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)
Stephen, Campbell


Glllett, George M.
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A.


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Townend, A. E.


Grundy, T. W.
Palln, John Henry
Viant. S. P


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Wallhead. Richard C.


Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawronce, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.
Welsh. J. C.


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)
Westwood, J.


Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, w.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, David (Swansea. E.)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, Jamas
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercllffe)


Kennedy, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Windsor, Walter


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shinwell, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.



Lawrence, Susan
Smillie, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsay, Rotherhths)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Lee, F.
Smith, Rennle (Panlstone)

CLAUSE 5 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will call upon the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) to move the proposed new Clause—(Postmaster-General to have power to acquire the undertakings at the some price)—which is third on the Paper.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: On a point of Order. Before proceeding with this proposed new Clause, may I draw attention to the first proposed new Clause on the Paper—(Beam wireless services not to be disposed of without consent of Parliament)—which stands in my name. May I respectfully submit certain reasons why it should be called. I think there are new reasons which you, Sir, may not have considered. Under existing Statutes the Postmaster-General has certain rights to lease property, whether actually in his possession or likely to be in his possession, to any private undertaking—any property which this House has given him permission to purchase. We consider that he has used those powers in order to provide the basis on which this Bill has been drawn up. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday said that the prices which we have been discussing in this Bill are based on probable future prospects. Now the probable future prospects are due to the fact that the Postmaster-General has leased the beam wireless for 25 years at
a fixed price of£250,000 plus a small percentage increase. That is the fundamental principle upon which this Bill and all the outside agreements, of which we know nothing, have been drawn up. Unless this proposed new Clause can be discussed, we are in a very difficult position. We cannot obtain from the Post-master-General the very simple facts which we desire to know about the beam wireless and about how he arrived at this price, and the various details as to what stations he is going to lease, and so forth. You will have seen yourself, Sir, from your position in the Chair, that the matter of the beam wireless has been brought in on nearly every Amendment, and J humbly submit that it is important that the rights of the House should be guarded, and not merely the rights of the House, but the rights of the country and the Empire in regard to the beans wire less.

The Deputy-CHAIRMAN: I think it is perfectly clear that the proposed New Clause to which the hon. Member refers is entirely the title and scope of the Bill.

Mr. BENN: May I point out that in the title of the Bill are words
and to make provision for certain matters incidental thereto

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This undoubtedly is a matter which cannot be considered as incidental.

Mr. BENN: May I also draw attention to the Preamble of the Bill, page 2, lines 36 and 41. You will find there that the Conference was appointed to report thereon and to make recommendations. I submit that the recommendations of the Conference, as embodied in the White Paper, must be in order on a Bill which makes specific reference in its Preamble to the report of the Conference.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I considered that paragraph in. the Preamble very carefully before the Debate commenced. It is quite clear to me that, however much or however little the question of the beam could be discussed at any other stages of this Bill, it would be quite impossible to admit a New Clause in the form of that which is on the Paper.

Mr. BENN: But it would have been possible to admit it if the Bill had been drafted in another form?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Bill had been drafted with reference to the powers generally of the Postmaster-General.

Mr. BENN: So it would have been in the power of the Government to have given the Committee an opportunity of discussing the matter, but they have ruled it out on a point of Order.

Mr. W. BAKER: In regard to the second proposed new Clause—(Licences for transmission of messages by wireless telephony or television not to be granted without consent of Parliament)—which I understand is also ruled out of order, may I call attention to the fact that in the report of the Imperial Conference, Recommendation (viii) reads as follows:
The Post Office in London will reserve the right to conduct the external telephonic services of Great Britain.
In view of that, recommendation, is it not right that we should be given an opportunity to discuss the conditions under which the Postmaster-General, as representing the Post Office in London, may grant licences?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not addressing my mind at the moment to what matters can be discussed in the general Debate on this Bill, but to the wording of this particular new Clause, which clearly is outside the scope and Title of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Postmaster-General to have power to acquire the undertakings at the same price.)

"The Postmaster-General may at any time acquire any or all of the afore-mentioned undertakings which are being transferred by this Act at a price not exceeding the price paid by the Communications Company by virtue of this Act."—[Mr. Malone.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MALONE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I wish to safeguard the country against paying an inflated price when it is decided to re-acquire these undertakings. I hope that some future Government may consider it desirable to take back these undertakings which are being disposed of and to re-acquire them for the good of the State. When that occasion arises, we do not want the Post Office to be faced with having to pay inflated prices for these underakings, because that is exactly what will happen. Even in the last few weeks, since this scheme first came before the country, the shares in certain of the undertakings concerned have enormously appreciated, and they will undoubtedly appreciate very much more. One reason for this is because of the contract which the Postmaster-General is going to make in regard to the beam wireless. The right hon. Gentleman has given an altogether too favourable contract leasing the beam wireless. If the beam wireless were going to be leased on a sliding scale, there might be some justification, but it is being leased at a fixed sum of£250,000 for 25 years, and—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Any transactions connected with beam wireless are not dealt with under this Bill, and the hon. Member must confine himself to arguments relating to the undertakings which are being transferred under this Bill.

Mr. MALONE: I apologise for transgressing your ruling, but it is very difficult, when the two contracts are so inextricably interlocked, not to touch on that point, which is fundamental to the question.

Mr. W. BAKER: As my hon. Friend has said, it is extremely difficult to discuss this matter without covering the whole field, but I will endeavour to
confine my remarks strictly to those undertakings which the Postmaster-General is apparently so anxious to get rid of that he is not likely to be anxious to resume control of them. Nevertheless, we have to remember that Recommendation (vii) of the Imperial Conference, headed "Additional Safeguards and Conditions," recommended—and the recommendation has been accepted by the Government—

(a) "that British control of all the companies must be guaranteed;
(b) that the Governments may assume control of the cable and wireless systems in time of war or other national emergency."
That recommendation is perfectly definite and has been accepted by the Government, and it seems to me, in these circumstances, that it is important to devote a few moments to considering the conditions under which that control or possession may he resumed. Personally, I believe that at no distant date it will be felt that the Government's decision on this matter has been a hasty and an ill-considered one. I believe that the decision will be reversed, and what I am anxious to secure is that if and when another Government desires to resume possession of the assets which are being transferred by this Bill, we shall net be compelled to pay a price out of all proportion to the price which we are receiving now. I think that constitutes the whole case for this new Clause.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Both the hon. Members who have supported this Clause have put their case shortly, and I do not blame them, because the case for the Clause is not a very strong one. I have seen a good many new Clauses in my time, and I have been responsible for a good many, and know when a new Clause is capable of defence, and I can assure the hon. Members that this Clause is wholly incapable of defence. As the Clause stands, what would happen would, be that it would enable the Postmaster-General to acquire, at a price not exceeding the price paid by the Communications Company, the Pacific cable, the West Indian cable, and the Imperial cables, but not to take back the lease of the beam wireless, which would remain quite unaffected by this Clause. The result would be that the Postmaster-General would be re-purchasing the least
remunerative part of the system and leaving the most remunerative part outside.
Apart from that, the Clause is quite unworkable from the point of view of the Dominion Governments, for it is not to be considered probable that when a question of re-purchase came it would be necessarily inferred that, for instance, the Canadian and Australian Governments would acquiesce in the re-purchase by the British Post Office, which is what this Clause suggests. From the point of view of the Communications Company and the development of its operations, it is an impossibly unworkable arrangement that they should be expected to carry on the system with the knowledge that, no matter what additions they make to it or what extra capital they spend Oil it, at any moment it may be re-purchased by the Postmaster-General at a price not exceeding the price paid by the company. Therefore, as the new Clause stands, both in its words and in its spirit, I really do not think it is capable of de fence. But more than that, it is in fact unnecessary to confer on the Government powers to take over the service in time of emergency. They already possess those powers, and, therefore, if this Clause professes, as the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) suggested, to be a Clause conferring those powers on the Postmaster-General, then it is otiose and unnecessary.

Mr. GILLETT: It seems to me that the Postmaster - General's argument might be put the other way round. He asks what would be the use of buying these new cables while the main company still retained the beam, but the extraordinary part of the matter is that the beam is only leased. Supposing at the end of 25 years the Government of the day did not wish to continue the lease, and supposing the lease came to an end, that is a time when the power to re-purchase these cables would become a very practical question. I could quite understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that the figure mentioned in the Clause is not a fair one, but I can see an enormous advantage in the hands of the Government, if at any time the lease was terminated either by the company or by the Government, that at any rate there should be some definite figure at which the Government would have the
right to re-purchase these cables in order that the system might become uniform again. The Postmaster-General seems to me to have entirely ignored the point really raised by this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 180.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
[1.36 p.m.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smlille, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bellamy, A.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Benn, Wedgwood
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Ht. Hon. Charles W.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Brlant, Frank
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Capt, Thomas
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R, (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Charleton, H. C.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cove, W. G.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Dunnlco, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Pethick. Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attarcllffe)


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hardle, George D
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(w. Eromwich)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James



NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnee)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd. Hanlty)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Drews, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Atholl Duchess of
Edge, Sir William
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Ellis, R. G
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bennett, A. J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Berry, Sir George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Betterton, Henry B
Forrest, W.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Fraser, Captain Ian
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brass, Captain W.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Ganzonl, Sir John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Gates, Percy
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lister, Cunllfle, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Livingstone, A. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Loder, J. de V.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Looker, Herbert William


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera


Clayton, G. C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacAndrew. Major Charles Glen


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macintyre, Ian


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
McLean, Major A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Llndsey, Gainsbro)
Hammersley, S. S.
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Stsel-


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kant)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Malone, Major P. B.
Preston, Sir Waltor (Cheltenham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Renter, J. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frasc[...]


Margesson, Captain D.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Meller, R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tistchfieid, Major the Marquess of


Momell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Rye, F. G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Montague, Frederick
Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sandon, Lord
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Savery, S. S.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wells, S R.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Pennefather, Sir John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Withers, John James


Penny, Frederick George
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Perring, Sir William George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Pllditch. Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stott, Lieut.-Colon I W. H.
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain Wallace.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The proposed new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) is not in Order, but he can move it with the omission of Sub-section (3):
(3) The governments represented upon the Imperial Advisory Committee shall have power to assume complete control of the services transferred by virtue of this Act and also the Beam wireless services in time of war or other national emergency.

New CLAUSE.—(Imperia1 Adrisory Committee.)

(1) There shall be established an Imperial Advisory Committee consisting of representatives appointed by the British Government, such representatives as may be appointed by the Governments of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and India, and such other representatives of parts of the Empire as may be approved by the British Government.

(2) The Imperial Advisory Committee shall have absolute control over the policy of the Communications Company as regards the maintenance and development of the services, the establishment of new services, the rates to he charged, and allocation of the funds which become available for rate reduction, and shall accordingly have access to all information in the hands of the Communications Company which will be necessary to enable the committee to carry out its duties.—[Mr. Benn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BENN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am very grateful to you, Mr. Dennis Herbert, for putting my Clause in order. I understand that Sub-section (3) is out of order, because it deals with certain
duties of other Governments which would not be within our purview. The difficulty we are in is that the Government have so drafted this Bill as to shut out from discussion all really material matters. They said to their draftsmen: "What can you do to produce a Bill which will give the minimum possible opportunity for criticism of the Government's decision?", and they have produced a Bill which gives the minimum legislative authority required to enable the Government to behave as they desire to behave on the recommendations of the Conference. But it has been understood that, whatever the exact meaning and terms of the Bill may be, the purpose is to set up a new organisation, and to limit it and control it in British and Imperial interests. Obviously that is the intention. Our difficulty is this. We said: "In order that we may be assured before we as a House of Commons part with the possession of these national assets, namely, cables, and before the Postmaster-General leases the beam, will you lay before us the agreements, so that they can be approved by a general omnibus Resolution of the House of Commons?" To that course the Government were not willing to assent. They tell us that the Communications Company has not any existence up to the present moment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must help the hon. Gentleman to keep his speech as well as his Amendment in order. He must not here discuss any dissatisfaction that he may have as to the course of the Government in drafting this Bill.

Mr. BENN: I am very grateful to you. Of course, if the Bill were adequate, I should not need to be moving new Clauses. I was trying to justify the course by which a private Member of this House is compelled to draft something which the Government should have drafted.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But the hon. Gentleman is not justified in making a long speech as to why he proposes to try and improve the Bill.

Mr. BENN: I think that all debate should be used to show why we desire to improve a Bill, but I will confine myself to my particular improvement. The Government ought to have told us about this Advisory Committee. It was not for them to leave it to a private Member to draft a Clause. The Advisory Committee is the link through which the Governments concerned control this service, but is it unreasonable to ask that the Government should have put into the Bill what I am submitting to the Committee, namely, the terms in which they propose to set up and to control the organisation of this Advisory Committee?. It is because of that lack on the part of the Government that this new Clause is drafted, and it is left to a private Member to endeavour to embody in the Bill something which is the essence of the scheme, and which should have been put before the House before we parted with any of our assets at all.
I do not propose to defend the terms in which this new Clause is drafted; it is a difficult thing to ask a private Member to draft a constitution for such an important body as this, but the Government have not done it. They have given us in this very able and terse Report which was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, what their ideas are, and what we have done has been, as far as possible, to follow the Government's own intentions in order that they might be embodied in the Statute, instead of being dependent on the will or whim of an administrative act. The Report says:
The Communications Company [is] to consult, in regard to questions of policy, including any alteration of rates, an Advisory Committee.
That is the first point.
"No increase of rates prevailing at the date of the formation of the Communica-
tions Company to be made, except with the assent, of the Advisory Committee."
It is interesting to note that it refers only to increases of rates beyond the rates prevailing at the date of the formation of the Communications Company. I think that I am right in saying that the tendency of cable rates has been to fall. One of the results of the beam service was to reduce considerably the cable rates, and it is interesting to observe that the Advisory Committee is not to be consulted except in relation to any increase of rates beyond the rates prevailing at the date of the formation of the Communications Company. If it be true to say that the beam will constantly reduce the price of cables, it seems to me that this precaution of saying that the Advisory Committee must assent to any increase beyond a certain date is illusory, and one may go further and say "eyewash." The next thing that the Advisory Committee is to do is to
have access to all information in the hands of the Communications Company.
The next thing is that it is to
be given absolute powers in regard to any proposed increase to existing rates, and the allocation of the funds which become available for rate reduction.
There are other questions upon which this Committee has to be consulted. The Committee will find them set out in page 19 of the White Paper. For example, it says:
It will be desirable that a reasonable proportion of the total cable traffic between Great Britain and Australia and New Zealand should continue to pass over the route by way of Canada, which does not touch foreign territory at any point.
So that it is still intended, apparently, to preserve the ideal of the Conservative party in 1901. I remember the Debates on what they called the All-Red Route. Furthermore,
In all such matters of general policy the Communications Company should consult the Imperial Advisory Committee.
In fact, there are further safeguards recommended in this White Paper, and I would like to ask the Government whether it is intended that these should be exercised through the Advisory Committee, or in some other way. On page 20, most important safeguards are referred to, such as British control of all the companies, and the control of the
Government of the cable and wireless systems in time of war. I do not know how that is to be exercised. I should have imagined that the ordinary Emergency Powers would have been sufficient. It may be that it will be done in some way through the Advisory Committee. I can hardly think that it can be done through the Communications Company, because the most that we can do in the way of control over the company is by the approval of two directors who are to be nominated by other people, one of them to be the Chairman.
Therefore, seeing the vital importance of these safeguards in the public interest and seeing the importance of these forms of control as to rates and as to the form in which the messages are to be sent, and as to control for public safety, the only course open to us is to place a new Clause in an imperfect form on the Paper, in order that the Government may either be pleased to accept it, or, if they will not accept it, to tell us what we are entitled to know, namely, exactly what steps they have taken in regard to this Committee. It is not unreasonable that the House of Commons should know before it takes this final step, because I would remind the Committee that we are not to debate cables again. The House will not be asked to approve the contracts. The Prime Minister has said that they would be put in the Library, but they will not be laid in any effective form so that we can debate them. Therefore, this is our last opportunity, and the Government should tell us precisely in what form this Advisory Committee is to be set up. Has it been set up? Are the Government's nominees decided? Is the constitution provided for, or has any sort of thought been given to the matter? I have no doubt that answers will be forthcoming, but it is inconceivable that the Government should have gone so far in the matter without this being in draft.

Mr. W. BAKER: This proposed Clause is likely to be the great test, so far as the average man is concerned, of the attitude of the Government towards the whole problem of Imperial communications, because there is nothing in the new Clause which is not strongly recommended by the Imperial Conference. My hon. Friend was justified in calling
attention to the fact that, in spite of the strong recommendations of the Imperial Conference, this Bill contains no reference whatever to the only adequate safeguard which the people of this country are likely to have once the Bill is passed into law. I do not know how many members of the Committee recollect the precise reference in the Report of the Imperial Conference, and perhaps I may be forgiven if I quote the Report in support of this new Clause rather than offer comments of my own. The Conference, on page 18 of their Report, said:
It is obviously desirable that, as a corollary to handing over to private enterprise the conduct of public services, there should be an effective method for ensuring that the users of this service shall not be exploited for the benefit of the shareholders in the private undertaking.
I am glad the Imperial Conference appreciated the danger which we have been trying to bring to the notice of the Government in these Debates. The Imperial Conference, having recognised that there was a definite danger to the interests of private users, went on to deal with the problem and to make specific recommendations. They said:
The Communications Company to consult, in regard to questions of policy, including any alteration of rates, and advisory Committee, which we suggest should include representatives of the Governments participating in this Conference, to whom representatives of other parts of the Empire may be added as required from time to time with the approval of the Governments concerned. No increase of rates prevailing at the date of the formation of the Communications Company to be made except with the assent of the Advisory Committee.
Why is it that this definite recommendation, which is the only safeguard the private user has, finds no place in the Bill? On page 19 of their report the Imperial Conference go on:
As the undertaking is one which closely concerns the several parts of the Empire, it is essential that they should have a voice in the direction of the policy of the undertaking; and having regard to the responsibilities of the Governments concerned, as trustees for the public, it is essential that they should be in a position to exercise an additional measure of control over policy to that secured by approval of the nomination of certain members of the Board of the undertaking. …As has been indicated above, the main concern of the Governments is to secure an efficient and cheap service. For this reason the Imperial Advisory Committee should, we suggest, be
given absolute powers in regard to any proposed increase to existing rates, and the allocation of the funds which become available for rate reduction in accordance with recommendation (v) above.
The Government ought to be reminded that in the view of the Imperial Conference they are the trustees of the public interest. In listening to these discussions, one is forced to come to the conclusion that the Government are much more inclined to think of the commercial and financial effect of these transactions on certain other persons than they are of the effect upon the public well being. I am glad the Imperial Conference are so definite as to the necessity of safeguarding the public interest. The Bill presented by the Government makes no proposals to safeguard the public interest, and if it passes into law without such a safeguard we have no guarantee that an Advisory Committee will be set up, or that any steps will be taken to prevent private interests securing the full fruits of the system.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. GILLETT: I presume we may take it that the recommendation on this point which appears in the Report has the support of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have put down a new Clause to give it effect, and although we do not believe in what the Government are doing at all, yet we feel that to adopt this suggestion would be better than to do nothing. But what I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that whether this proposal or the other be adopted, it will be an exceedingly difficult thing to lay down the exact terms on which the Advisory Committee are going to work. It says in the report that the Advisory Committee ought to have a voice in the direction of policy. That depends on what is meant by "a voice." Is it to be a voice crying in the wilderness, or is it a voice which has some definite authority behind it? Supposing a question arises as to sending messages by Canada—a question to which reference is made in the Report. Supposing it is more expensive to send messages by Canada, 'and that from a commercial point of view it is better to send them another way, though from the Imperial standpoint they ought to go by Canada. The Advisory Committee may think they ought to go by Canada, but the Communica-
tions Company may say, "No, we are not doing very well financially, and they must go the other way." The Advisory Committee have had their voice, but who decides the question? If the Communications Company say, "No, we will not listen to you," does that end the matter?
Then the question may arise as to whether it is advisable to build a new station or develop a service which at the moment is not very profitable but which is perhaps necessary in the public interest. We can get an analogous case from the tramways. A tramway or a railway may be developed in a certain direction because the public interest will need it in a little time, though it may be necessary to wait until houses have been built up in the district before the line brings in profit. An ordinary commercial company might say it was not worth while to do that. If the Advisory Committee made a similar suggestion in regard to new cable services, but the Communications Company did not agree with their recommendation would that be the end of it? The question of the rates to be charged, particularly the rates for special services, may also arise. I believe that at present the newspapers can send press messages on special terms. Suppose the Advisory Committee thought the press were being unduly favoured and made representations to the Communications Company, I take it that here again, unless the Communications Company were willing to agree with them the recommendations would be nothing more than a mere suggestion.
It seems to me that all through there is nothing to show that the Advisory Committee have any power. Will the conditions of the employés of the Communications Company in regard to wages and other matters fall within the purview of the Advisory Committee? Supposing, the employés in this country were not receiving satisfactory wages and the matter was raised in the Rouse of Commons. It would be said that the Government have representatives on the Communications Company and also have members on this Advisory Committee. Would it be in order for the Advisory Committee to make representations to the Communications Company that the conditions of the employés were not satisfactory? There is one other point, it is stated that all the information in
the books of the Communications Company must be available for the Advisory Committee. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman how that provision will be made to work. Suppose the Advisory Committee fall out with the Communications Company, how are they going to compel the company to give them information? The whole thing must depend upon the two bodies working together. The Advisory Committee have very little power. They may talk, and, if the Company agree to their recommendations, something may be done, but, except for that the institution of this committee is a very slender return for the loss of control. It is better to have this Advisory Committee than nothing at all. We feel that we should have a body of this sort even if the power left to the Government, after handing over these cables, seems to leave very little power in the hands of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. MALONE: I hope the Financial Secretary will give us the fullest possible information about the constitution and personnel of the Advisory Committee, and I trust he will not be deterred by any possible criticism from his own supporters. The point which occurs to me is: who is going to appoint the Advisory Committee? Will they be appointed on the recommendation of the cable companies in the same way as the Government representatives are appointed, and will the Government have a final say in the matter? The words are:
approved by the Government at the suggestion of the cable companies.
In my view, that will be quite ineffective. The main purpose of this Amendment is to try and establish some safeguard of our Imperial interests. We have urged in the course of these Debates that one of the reasons for the formation of the merger and the Communications Company was the need of maintaining the cables for the sake of Imperial strategy. Now it has emerged in the Debate that this will be no safeguard at all in fact, one of these cables is going to be scrapped as soon as it has been transferred. Consequently, there will be absolutely no safeguard in the way of preserving Imperial strategy for the future, because one of these cables is to be scrapped in a few years' time.
With regard to the Imperial Advisory Committee which is provided for in this new Clause, the most important question to be considered by them is the rates to be charged by these companies. I think that is a matter which affects everybody in this House and every commercial and private person in this country. If the Advisory Committee go into the whole question of rates, they will find that the British public is very seriously handicapped by the high charges made by the cable companies. Take the case of Hong Kong or Shanghai, where you have to pay 3s. per word for a cablegram. It costs exactly the same to the companies to send those messages to Canada, where the charge is only 9d. per word. I suggest that the Advisory Committee ought to go into the whole question of Imperial communications, because it costs the companies exactly the same to send a message to any part of the world. With the new short wave length it is possible to work a chief station on 25 kilowatts at all times of the day, and to get a regular service of communication at 300 words a minute. It costs exactly the same to transmit a message to Canada, South Africa or Australia, although in the latter case you have now to pay 3s. a word. The statement has been made by those who look after the cable companies that it costs more to send a message a long distance, but that is an absolute fallacy. It is possible to-day to have an all-round fixed rate of 5d. per word to every part of the Empire, and I suggest that the Advisory Committee might look into that question, and see whether it is not desirable to fix a lower rate and possibly scrap some of these cables.
I am aware that if this scheme was not brought in, many cables would have to be scrapped. We have been told that they are all required for Imperial service. I have been looking at the map of the Eastern service supplied by the Eastern Telegraph Company, and I cannot see why some of those services should not be scrapped. Why should we continue to spend money on these out-of-date services when a better service can be maintained by wireless beam stations of 25 kilowatts? I think all these matters ought to be examined by an efficient body which would not work behind closed doors. I hope that when we get a reply from the Government we shall he given some assurance that the whole question
of rates charged by these companies will be gone into. The Financial Secretary is rightly interested in the Chambers of Commerce. I know that they are sending messages every day to all parts of the Empire, and it is in their interests that they should be able to send those messages at a cheap rate. If they could send messages to Hong Kong, Shanghai and Australia at 5d. per word, look at the business which the companies would be able to do. A reform of that kind would establish an all-round reduction of rates at a fixed flat rate, and subsidies in all these cases might be found necessary for Imperial purposes. That is one example of the very important points which ought to be gone into by this Advisory Committee.
I appreciate the difficulty we are in owing to the very complex nature of this contract and the many things which are outside the scope of this Measure. I would like to ask: will this Advisory Committee be able to review the whole situation of beam wireless? Will they be able to review not only the cable system which is contained in this Bill, but also the question of communications with Europe? I do not think that the Postmaster-General has given us any indication that, when we are forming this great world-wide international Communications Company, we are leaving out the question of vital communications with the Continent of Europe. The Postmaster-General has now sole control of 64 cables to Europe and the ordinary land lines. It is true that there are two competing services. The Marconi Company was given a licence to communicate with certain European countries, and the Postmaster-General has maintained corn munications with other countries. You have also got a competing system in the wireless. I cannot see when you have this great international combine which will deal with the communication side of European countries how the Post Office can carry on effectively the remainder of those communications with other countries in Europe. For instance, the Marconi Company is already competing with the Post Office even in those countries where they have not a licence to communicate by radio. They communicate between London and Berne by wireless, but they have not the right—

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Communications Company will not operate at all to and from the Continent of Europe, and, if that be so, the Advisory Committee cannot get any jurisdiction in these matters.

Mr. MALONE: But many of the messages which go over the lines and over the radio controlled by the Communications Company go from or to other countries in Europe, and it is impossible, in examining the whole situation, not to take into consideration the communications between this country and the Continent of Europe.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be an argument against the whole proposals of the Report, but what is before the Committee at the moment is a new Clause to set up an Advisory Committee to control the Communications Company. Obviously, that committee will neither advise nor control the Communications Company in respect of services with which that company has nothing to do.

Mr. MALONE: I took it from the White Paper that the Advisory Committee was going to advise the Government as to what they should do, and not the Communications Company, and it would be proper in that case for them to advise as to what policy should be adopted in regard to the European services; but I will leave that point. There are two other points which I think ought to be fully understood, and on which we have had no information at all. The first is as to the Government's attitude towards telephony. There is a very vague reference to it in the White Paper. I do not know whether this is the appropriate point at which to raise it, but the whole development of wireless depends on telephony. The Post Office commenced the inauguration—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to me to he making suggestions for the general reform of communication by the Post Office throughout the world. This, however, is a very limited proposal to set up an Advisory Committee to control the Communications Company, and the Communications Company, I understand, are to have nothing to do with telephony.

Mr. BENN: Oh, yes; they have the apparatus.

The CHAIRMAN: They cannot operate it, I understand, without a licence from the Postmaster-General. These questions will be perfectly relevant on the Post Office Estimates, but not on this particular Clause.

Mr. MALONE: The White Paper says:
The Post Office in London …will agree with the Company the terms on which it will have the right to use the Company's wireless stations, or portions thereof, for telephonic purposes.
That seems to indicate that the Communications Company will ultimately control all the telephonic services between this country and the Continent of Europe. The telephone service has been another growing asset to the Postmaster-General—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not dealt with by this Bill. This Bill only deals with a fraction of the proposals for reform, and this particular Clause only deals with certain aspects of that. The hon. Member seems really to be addressing himself to the policy of the Post Office all round, and that is quite outside this Bill.

Mr. MALONE: I bow to your Ruling. I am only indicating some important matters which the Advisory Committee ought to consider and report upon. I will content myself with supporting the Amendment and expressing the hope that the Financial Secretary will inform us on the two points that I have raised, namely, the constitution of this Committee—who they are going to be, and whether they are going to be appointed by the Government, or whether they are going to be nominated by the cable companies, as the directors have been nominated, and only approved as a second thought by the Government—and what definite authority the Advisory Committee will have in regard to fixing rates for cables all over the Empire on an equitable basis.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) has asked about the personnel of the Advisory Committee, and by whom they will be nominated. To the question whether the members of the committee will be nominated-by the cable companies, my answer is "No." To the question whether they will be nominated
by the Government, my answer is also "No." They will be nominated by the Governments, that is to say, the British Government and the sister Governments of the Dominions and India.

Mr. BENN: Severally?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, severally; each person will be nominated by the Government whom he purports to represent. As to the fears of contingencies expressed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), and in some degree also by the hon. Member for Northampton, I will not weary them or the Committee by reading the last 21 lines on page 10 of the Report of the Imperial Conference and the first six lines on page 20, beginning at the words "The Imperial Advisory Committee" on page 19, and continuing down to the word "accordingly" on page 20. These paragraphs exactly answer the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury as to what it is recommended that the Imperial Advisory Committee should have power to do, and they deal with every one of the points that he raised.

Mr. GILLETT: My questions arose from my reading of those paragraphs, because I could not understand them.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is not my fault, if I may say so. I hope the hon. Member will not, take it as discourteous, but I must say that it is a rather careless way of reading the Report if he does not understand it. I cannot help him to do more than read the Report, and I think he will find it very easy to understand. All of these points will he provided for in the agreement that will be made—

Mr. W. BAKER: Then why not accept the Clause?

Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech. If the conditions of the agreement are not carried out, the sanction, as it is called in diplomatic language, will operate, that is to say, the licence will be withdrawn, and the company will not be able to operate. There will be that stranglehold upon them.

Mr. GILLETT: What I wanted to understand was this: The Report says that the Advisory Committee should have a voice in the direction of the
policy of the undertaking, and what I desire to know is, what is meant by having a voice. Does it mean that when they have said a thing it will have the force of law? I can read that paragraph over and over again, and still the voice will be there.

Mr. SAMUEL: It means that the Company cannot move on certain matters without the assent of the Advisory Committee, which, accordingly, has a stranglehold on them.

Mr. GLLETT: That is very important.

Mr. SAMUEL: As I said yesterday, the hon. Gentleman must recollect that the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself are not children in business matters, and we are doing our duty in protecting the interests of the taxpayer and the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman also asked why we had not embodied in the Bill the proposals contained in this Clause. My answer is that the licences which I have just explained, and which are really a strangle-hold on the Company, will be granted, and the agreement will provide for all points that are necessary to secure the interests of the various Governments—

Mr. BENN: Has this been gone into with them?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is being gone into; it is in hand. The hon. Gentleman must get out of his head the idea that those who are acting for the Government are children. One reason for not embodying these proposals in the Bill is that the conditions and safeguards are so many and so complicated that it would be a physical impossibility to embody them in a convenient form in an Act of Parliament unless the Act were of unreasonable length. A further point which I would beg the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind is that the interests are not ours only; we have to take into account the whole Empire. It would be inappropriate—I will not use a stronger word, although a stronger word would he justifiable—to include in an enabling Bill provisions to limit or define a direction and discretion that is not ours alone, but is shared by us with other Governments.
The first part of the proposed new Clause says that there shall be a committee of representatives of all parts of the Empire which shall be subject to the approval of the British Government.
That again, if I may say so, is careless drafting. The Imperial Conference said "Governments," in the plural. All the Governments have to be taken into consideration and, for that reason, that part of the new Clause is entirely inacceptable. Take the second part. This goes beyond the recommendations of the Conference. It would give the Advisory Committee absolute control over the policy of the Communications Company. Have the Committee realised this? The Advisory Committee, under the recommeadations of the Conference, is to have an absolute veto over any increase of rates and the distribution of half the surplus profits. The point at which that becomes operative is over£1,865,000, the fixed standard revenue. If the profits grow beyond that point, 12 per cent. comes to us, and it goes into the taxpayers' pocket—it comes to us at the Treasury—and half the surplus is to be returned to the consumer in the form of reduced charges and better services. It is now suggested in the new Clause that the Committee should have power to reduce rates how and when they please. Hon. Members opposite have knowledge of business enough to know that no company would tolerate a condition of that kind. No company would be formed. They would say: "Leave the thing alone. We will not take it on subject to such a proviso." The condition is impracticable. It would wreck the undertaking.
A point has been raised about the resumption of control. This is recommended by the Conference and is quite sound. The way hon. Members want to do it is not possible. It cannot be done by legislation. Hon. Members forget that there are two ends to a cable. The services are not located in Great Britain only, but all over the Empire, so that you could confer power on the British Government but not on the other Governments. Finally, legislation is not necessary because the licences and agreements will provide that the various Governments can in emergency reassume control of the Empire communications in any part of the Empire concerned. That is quite sufficient to give effect to the suggestion hon. Members opposite have embodied in their proposal with regard to the resumption of control.

Mr. MALONE: I was not quite clear about rates. I understood the hon.
Gentleman to say the Post Office had a strangle-hold in being able to cancel the licence.

Mr. SAMUEL: The Government.

Mr. MALONE: Does that mean that if the Advisory Committee reports that it is an economic proposal to communicate by beam wireless to Hong Kong at 5d. a word and make a profit of 100 per cent., the Government would be able, if necessary, to cancel the beam wireless?

Mr. SAMUEL: That very point, on broader lines, is dealt with on page 19, and, if the hon. Member will read it, he will see his question answered.

Mr. MALONE: Will there be a clause in the agreement with the Communications Company allowing for cancelling the 25 years' lease?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot give an assurance on a difficult point like that across the Floor of the House at a second's notice, but I will take note of it.

Mr. BENN: Now see where we really stand. We put down a new Clause full of mistakes as far as drafting is concerned. I said that at the outset. We are not Parliamentary draftsmen. It is the Government's job to put this in writing. I make no apology for any faults in drafting, but it is quite a material point of principle. We ought to see the terms of this understanding before we part with property. What is the hon. Gentleman's defence? First, that the thing is too long to put in writing in the Schedule of an Act of Parliament. The second is that it is being put in writing and will be published later in the form of a licence.

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not use the word "published."

Mr. BENN: Let us see where we are now. We had a solemn undertaking from the Prime Minister that we are to have this thing published for the information of Members and for definite approval by the House. Now the hon. Gentleman says he does not say it is going to be published. Are the contracts going to be published or not? How can you manage with people like this? Furthermore, he says the licence will be issued by the Government. It is not
issued by the Government, but by the Postmaster-General. Surely, it is the Postmaster-General who issues all licences for telegraphic communication. Here is a further difference of opinion.

Viscount WOLMER: The Postmaster-General is a member of the Government.

Mr. BENN: That is very illuminating. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that this will not be issued by the Post Office.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth that I did not use.

Mr. BENN: I certainly am not going to quarrel with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think he said that, but if he says he did not say it, of course I shall accept it. The licence is issued by the Postmaster-General. Is it in draft? Will anyone put it on the Table? We do not know. I ask hon. Members who do not agree with us and think we are all wrong and our views unsound: is it unreasonable to ask, before we part with this property, that something should be put on paper by the Postmaster-General or someone else? Let us again see how far we have got. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says, "We need not bother about the new Clause. We have a strangle-hold, because the Government, or the Postmaster-General, has to issue a licence to these people and, if they do not obey, we will withdraw the licence." That sounds a very good argument. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) saws, "If you lease it for 25 years, have you the power to terminate, despite the lease?" and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says, "That is a point I must consider." What sort of position are we in? Is it a fact that you have a stranglehold by an annual licence? When you have granted a 25 years' lease, is not that done with? It is not unreasonable to raise these points before we part with these big assets.
Let me take another point. This Advisory Committee is the pivot of the whole thing, because it is the link between public control and this large private undertaking. The Advisory Committee has to do a great many things. I think the hon. Gentleman was wrong in one respect. They can only
protest against an increase of the cable rates, and not against the rates existing at the time of the agreement. My argument was based on the fact that there is, in fact, a normal decline in rates, and they are never likely to be raised beyond the point at which they stand now. However, there is a very much more important point. The Financial Secretary says that this Advisory Committee is going to prevent this new merger or Communications Company from doing such things as, for example, imperilling Imperial interests by not sending a certain number of messages by what is called the All-Red Route to Canada. That is one of his great illustrations. Is the Advisory Committee in existence at the present moment? May I ask him that question in passing? May I ask him for any gesture, "Yes" or "No". He does not know. He says, of the Advisory Committee, for example, that this is the sort of job they are to do. They are to see that the All-Red Route is protected by ensuring that a certain number of messages pass via Canada. Hon. Members will remember that the

Imperial cables and the Canadian Atlantic cables put forth a girdle entirely on British territory. The Financial Secretary is probably not aware that one of his colleagues has said, in his absence, that one of the first things that this Communications Company are going to do is to break the Imperial Red Route. Really, is it tolerable in the House of Commons that the Financial Secretary should come forward and tell us that one of the great things for the Advisory Committee to do is to preserve the All-Red Route, when he does not know that in his absence an hour or two ago one of his colleagues said that we are selling the thing, we are getting the best price we can, and breaking the link by disposing of one of the cables. In these circumstances, I think that the best thing that we can do is to take this new Clause or some Clause in order, before we lose a complete grip of the matter, that we should have, what is commonly called "something on paper."

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 187.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[2.38 p.m.


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bellamy, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Charlston, H. C.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Ht. Hon. John R.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of
Balniel, Lord


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perring, Sir William George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bennett, A. J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Remer, J. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, Majors. E, (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brass, Captain W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye, F. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Buchan, John
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Skelton, A. N.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smithers, Waldron


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockcrill, Brig.-General Sir George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cope, Major Sir William
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Storry-Deans, R.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Livingstone, A. M.
Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Looker, Herbert William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vare
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I, of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Drewe, C.
Macintyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ellis, R. G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Forrest, W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. c. R. (Ayr)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ear


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Withers, John [...]ames


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gates, Percy
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Grant, Sir J. A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Mr. Penny and Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pennefather, Sir John



Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

The CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause which stands on the Paper—(British, control to be guaranteed)—appears to me to be open to the objection that it departs from established constitutional usage. It appears to impose obligations upon companies, some of which would be domiciled in various Dominions and would, therefore, be subject to Dominion laws. I cannot see my way to select that new Clause, because it would be a serious departure from established constitutional usage.

Mr. BENN: On that point of Order. I would point out that the Communica-
tions Company is compelled to make a full disclosure to the Advisory Committee. On the Advisory Committee, we are to have nominees, and the Communications Company will be, under the terms of the licence, compelled to make a full disclosure.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but some of these companies will be Dominions companies, and by this proposed new Clause they would be required to give guarantees satisfactory to the British Government. That would be upsetting established constitutional usage.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation, to existing officers and servants.)

(1) Any officer or servant employed in connection with the Pacific Cable undertaking, or the West Indian undertaking, or the Imperial Transatlantic Cable undertaking on the said first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall be transferred to and become an officer or servant, as the case may be, of the Communications Company by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before the said first day of April, and shall receive not less salary or remuneration than the salary or remuneration to which he would have been entitled if this Act had not been passed, and any such officer or servant who by virtue of this Act, or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof, suffers any direct pecuniary loss by determination of his appointment or by diminution of salary or emoluments shall be entitled to compensation under this Act for that loss.

Any claim to compensation made by such officer or servant shall be determined by the Postmaster-General.

(2) For the purposes of the preceding subsection any officer or servant—

(i) who, at any time within five years after the passing of this Act, relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous to, or which are an unreasonable addition to, those which he was required to perform immediately before the passing of this Act; or
(ii) whose appointment is determined or whose salary is reduced within five years after the passing of this Act because his services are not required, or his duties are diminished, and not on the ground of misconduct
shall be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act.—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The words of the new Clause are in common form and have occurred again and again in Acts of this kind. They occur also in the Local Government Bills for England and Scotland. In those particular Bills compensation is allowed, and the position of the servants and employés is safeguarded. We ought to have some such safeguard in this Bill. If the Government do not like the actual words of the new Clause, although they are common form, we shall be prepares to consider any alternative safeguards. We are certainly entitled to ask for some guarantee for the position of those
faithful servants of the State in the cable companies, who have had no charge of incompetence or lack of zeal brought against them, but have been complimented again and again by successive Postmasters-General, and have been publicly thanked for their services by some of the greatest figures in this House while holding their offices under the State. I shall be very glad to hear that their position has been safeguarded.
The only persons whose rights we have heard about are the directors of the private companies which are to be merged in the new Communications Company. On page 18 of the White Paper it is admitted that there will be redundant directors on the first Board of the new Communications Company:
At the outset the number of directors will, in consequence of the amalgamation, be large.
In answer to a question which I put, arising out of the number of Government directors, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the number would be 20. The White Paper goes on to say:
It has, however, been proposed to, and accepted by the companies, that, as and when opportunities offer, this number will be reduced to a smaller figure, say twelve, including of course the two directors appointed by His Majesty's Government.
That is the only word we have had about the human element in this business. It is, of course, satisfactory to the gentlemen who are members of the boards of directors of the companies concerned.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that arises on this new Clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Apparently, their position is made secure, and I ask that equally generous treatment should be given to the officers and employés of the Government cables, the Imperial Atlantic Cables and the West Indian Cables, which we are handing over. The Noble Lord spoke earlier about rationalisation in connection with materials. He told us that probably one of the Atlantic cables would be allowed to rot away, and that other savings in material would be made. What is the position of the personnel? If you allow a cable to go down you may affect the strategic interest of the Empire, but if you dismiss men without compensation and throw them into an overcrowded market, skilled men who can only obtain
employment under this monopoly in the future, I maintain that as the State has employed them in the past the State ought to safeguard their position in the future.
If there is to be rationalisation of human material, will the Noble Lord inform the Committee what safeguards have been proposed by the Post Office, and are they standing by their own servants. Hon. Members will agree that we ought to ask for something substantial from the Government. If this is a matter which must be dealt with in future contracts, and if that reason is to be given for refusing to accept this new Clause, then I think we should ask for some assurance from the Treasury that they will make a fight for the position of these servants. They have the whip hand, and I think it would be a gracious act on the part of the Treasury if they would make a strong fight for the salaries and future prospects of these faithful servants of this House, just as the interests of private enterprise have been safeguarded.

Mr. SAMUEL: I think the hon. and gallant Member has overlooked Recommendation 3, on page 17 of the White Paper, which deals with this point and which provides that arrangements shall be made for the transfer of the existing staffs, and the terms to be arranged. I would remind the Committee that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the House during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. I will not trouble the House by reading that statement, but it is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT and is within the recollection of the Committee.

Mr. W. BAKER: Will the hon. Member read it?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes. It is as follows:
I can assure the House that that is a matter which was very carefully considered by the Imperial Conference and the Government, and the arrangements to be made for the transfer of the Government cable and beam system will include provisions for the transfer to the company of existing staffs. Full consideration will he given to that aspect of the question, and no effort will be spared to secure a just settlement. I can assure the House that ample opportunities will be given to the staffs concerned to examine the proposed arrangement and make such suggestion as they may think fit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1928; col. 1869, Vol. 222.]
The arrangements to be made will be in respect of the Pacific cable staff, the West Indian cable staff, and the Post Office cable staff. In so far as the new Clause refers to the Pacific cable staff, they are clearly inappropriate as subjects of special legislation by the British Parliament, but, apart from that, it is obvious that a satisfactory settlement can only be secured by detailed negotiations in the light of the particular circumstances attaching to each class of employment. The Committee, however, may be assured that the Government. are determined, and are even pledged, to do their utmost to reach a just and acceptable settlement in the terms of transfer, and they intend to do all that lies in their power to see that the transfer to the Communications Company shall not be accompanied by a worsening of the position of the employés. Before any settlement is made, full opportunity kill be given to the representatives of the staffs concerned to examine the proposed arrangement and to make any such representations in the matter as they may think fit. It will not be possible to announce any detailed scheme until the partner Governments and the staffs concerned have gone into the whole matter in detail. I am in a position to state, after a close consideration of the Amendment, that, whatever difference there may be in detail, we have not, in my own view of the matter, overlooked any of the points raised therein. I hope the Committee will be satisfied with that statement.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. TOWNEND: Just as the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading was quite unsatisfactory equally unsatisfactory is the reply of the Financial Secretary now in regard to the question of compensation for the staffs. All the way through we have been dealing with two factors. The first factor is the financial claims connected with the scheme; and very generous treatment has been given to these claims. Indeed, practically all the time has been taken up by Members on this side in condemnation of the unfairness of the proposals in this respect. Now we are dealing with the second factor. We do not ask for the same generous treatment which has been meted out in the first place, but we ask that those responsible
for this scheme should treat this second claim with the equity to which it is entitled. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary does not cover the position at all. The assumption on the part of the Government that whatever arrangements have to be made must be detailed negotiations is not quite in accordance with our experience. In his speech the Secretary of State pointed out that before any arrangements are made with the Communications Company the conditions under which the staffs are to be transferred will be submitted to the staffs for their suggestions; they are to have full opportunity to consider them, but I look in vain for any statement that they will he submitted to the representatives of the staffs for approval. That is the important matter. Arrangements which have been entered into concerning the financial side of these negotiations have always had to receive the approval of the other side, and we are asking that the staff side shall have these conditions submitted to them for approval.
Seven years ago this principle was laid down. It was the case of a huge merger, involving a far greater number of employés than the number involved on this occasion. It was anticipated that their position might be in some jeopardy and the question had to be faced. On that occasion the Government did not lay the conditions of the contract before the staffs. They laid down the exact terms on which compensation would be granted. A definite compensation clause was inserted and about 700,000 of the staffs on the administration and operative side were all included in the scheme. We ask that definite terms should he inserted in this Bill in order to protect the interests of those whose positions may be endangered as a result of this legislation. Let me recall the attention of hon. Members to an even more recent case where the question of compensation was considered. Within the life-time of the present Parliament£33,500,000 of money was put on one side under the Electricity Acts. The question of compensation for capital was considered and was applied equally as generously in that case as it is proposed to apply it now. After we had finished with capital we went on to property. Compensation was claimed on behalf of private electricity undertakings, and a further lump sum of compensation was handed to private interests. After
having considered the question of compensation for the disturbance of capital and the disturbance of plant and property a claim was made for compensation on behalf of the human element, and the same compensation clause was introduced into the Electricity Supply Acts as was introduced seven years ago into the Railways Act.
All that we are asking for is that the same conditions as apply to the staffs who were disturbed by the electricity scheme, shall be applied to those who find their positions jeopardised as a result of this Bill. The answer of the Financial Secretary does not fit the Bill. The Government have it in their power to introduce here and now such a Clause as this. Although the drafting may not cover the whole of the case, it could be altered. I should prefer a Clause without a limiting period, because even after the 1921 Compensation Clause, owing to the organisation of that huge merger, there are certain people becoming redundant even now. That fact demonstrates how essential it is that the very lives not only of the various staffs shall be protected, but the lives of those who are dependent on them, not for one year, but five years or 10 years. As I have said, I should have preferred no limiting period in the Clause, but even with a limitation the Clause is far more definite than the kind of reply that we have had from the Financial Secretary. The suggestion that compensation should be left till a later date means the throwing away of any claim that we may have for equal treatment.
There is only one time for this compensation arrangement, and that is the present, here and now. If this opportunity is allowed to pass, the chances of getting justice for the staff will disappear. Compensation was applied in the ease of the railways, but a few years before the leading spokesman of the railway laid it down that one of the first principles of a business institution was that, when they had finished with a man and could not find work for him, they were at perfect liberty to throw him on the industrial scrap-heap. That principle is applied to-day in many areas of the country. We are certainly not going to allow this Bill to pass without offering the most strenuous opposition to any
suggestion that the matter shall be left over. We feel that unless there is something definite and statutory and legally binding inserted in the Bill, those concerned will have their future seriously endangered. The same kind of treatment as has been meted out in larger doses of generosity to the capitalist factor that is playing its part in this matter, ought to be meted out to those for whom we are pleading.

Mr. MALONE: I am sure that the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be read with dismay and dissatisfaction by the hundreds of officers and men who are concerned. I would like to pay a tribute to the officers and men employed on the cable and radio service, whose work in the last 20 or 30 years has made possible the enormous development that we have seen. The Committee ought to understand something about the number of officers and men affected. We have the staffs employed at the different stations of the undertakings referred to in the New Clause. We have at the central cable office of the Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand the men who operate the ends of these cables, and in the same room are the men who are operating the beam services. I believe that, in the Post Office alone, something like 250 telegraph clerks and supervising officers are concerned. Then you have at all the different beam stations men who are under the Postmaster-General, and you have also the engineering staffs.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The employées concerned in the beam service are not the employés who come within this proposed New Clause.

Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not possible that the part of the proposed New Clause which refers to analogous positions, would bring in the question of the beam wireless?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, hon. Members must confine themselves to this proposed New Clause which deals with a particular class of officers or servants, employed only in connection with the cable undertakings.

Mr. MALONE: I was led to digress because, in the room at the central cable office, are the officers manipulating the
cables and also those manipulating the beam services. It is all the same problem, but I shall refer to them as "cable operators." We have already had five Government Departments concerned in these discussions and I do not know which Department will take charge of this matter, but I should like attention to be paid to three points. The first concerns conditions. I understand that, lately, a claim for a large increase of wages was put forward. That claim is now in the hands of the Secretary to the Post Office, but, owing to the pending merger, it is in abeyance. I want an assurance that before these men are transferred to any merger, or Communications Company, or any other organisation of that kind, all these outstanding wage claims will be considered and decided. I do not want them to be left to the new company to decide. I know that there is a great deal of give and take about the conditions. The conditions in the Eastern Telegraph Company are better than those in the Marconi Company, but worse than those in the Post Office. A certain amount of bargaining may be possible about conditions of employment. Would it not be better that the Government, before they go any further, should discuss the draft terms of the agreement with the organisations concerned? Why do they not call a conference of the Union of Postal Workers, the Overseas Telegraph Superintending Officers' Association, the engineers, and all the different organisations of the men concerned?
The second point I want to make is in regard to security. When these men are taken over by this new undertaking, there should be an assurance of a certain amount of security for them. While employed under Post Office conditions they are, more or less, in a permanent service. I fear that under the new undertaking there is a great chance that many of the Post Office men will be dismissed. One reason is that on these long-distance cable services, up till a short time ago, men were employed in working the relay stations. It is not possible to send a message direct from London to Australia, and men have to operate the relay stations. The beam wireless is operated direct from the Post Office. In these long-distance cable companies, I understand that these human relays have now been substituted
by mechanical regenerators, and that in gone company alone, the Eastern Telegraph Company, no fewer than 400 men are now on what corresponds to notice.
These men are employed by the cable companies, which will have the controlling influence in the new merger, and there is a likelihood that the predominant factor in the new company may try to find posts for these men in the new company. That will require very careful consideration, but it is a danger. The Post Office men, who are not in this controlling position, may receive a second place, and the cable companies' employés may Dome and take their places. This is what the chairman of one of the Post Office organisations writes to me, and I think it is a fair statement of the position:
It is the considered opinion of the staff that an agreement should be drawn up which makes definite safeguards for the staff before the transfer takes place. This—
and this is the important point—
must cover a term of guaranteed employment, as the present Post Office system is virtually a guarantee for continuity of work.
My last point is this: I hope that any transfer arrangements will be entirely voluntary. A man employed by a cable company or by the Post Office must be given his own choice as to whether or not he transfers to this new organisation, and if he does not elect to transfer, he must be given reasonable terms for going on pension or obtaining other employment either in the Post Office or anywhere else.

Mr. W. BAKER: Owing to the necessity, under the Ruling of the Chair, to amalgamate three Amendments on the Paper into this new Clause, it has been necessary for the word "shall" to appear where, in the case of one Amendment, the word "may" appears. That is important, because it does not necessarily follow that a man now employed on the Imperial Atlantic cables will desire to be transferred, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seems to imagine. He read out a long statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland in which what was thought to be a favourable assurance was given in that form, that the men would be transferred, but I hope the Postmaster-General will take it from me
that there are men in the postal and telegraphic service of his Department who have no desire to be transferred at the dictate of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It shows one of the difficulties of handing these things over to persons outside the Departments connected with them, that the problems in relation to them are not always understood. What we want is an assurance, not only that certain men shall be transferred or compensated, but that there shall be the option whether the men will or will not be transferred, and that if they do not desire to leave the Post Office service, they should be guaranteed employment equivalent in remuneration and similar in status to the work which they have been performing during recent years for the Postmaster-General. This point has been mentioned two or three times in this Debate, and I had hoped that the Assistant Postmaster-General would have dealt with it, but so far I have not received the undertaking or promise which I sought.
I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) that it is no good to the men concerned, or to us, to tell us that, at some distant date, negotiations as to details will take place. Once this Bill is through, there is no chance at all for the staff to have any effective negotiations on any of these points, and if the Government have good will towards the staff—and there is no reason why they should not—let them accept the new Clause or give a specific undertaking that the fair thing will be done by everyone concerned. I am reminded that the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the provident fund, the pension guarantee fund and the pension fund of the Pacific Cable Board would be dealt with by means of a private Bill which would be introduced to this House at the cost of approximately£400. What I want to ask is, whether the whole settlement of the details with regard to the future of these men will be considered and settled, not only before that private Bill is drafted for introduction here, but before this Bill receives the Royal Assent. It is not good enough that this Bill should be passed and put out of the way before many of these vital matters receive adequate consideration on the part of the House of Commons and the Committee.

Viscount WOLMER: I think, perhaps, I ought to say one word after what has fallen from the hon. Member in regard to the telegraph engineers. I would remind the Committee that they are civil servants and that they have rights of which the hon. Member opposite is fully aware. There is no question of transferring these civil servants against their wish. The question is simply whether the Communications Company would be able to induce them to leave their present service and take service with the company. In order to do that, it is obvious that the Communications Company would have to make the terms offered as attractive as possible, and, therefore, there is no question of any compulsion of that sort. At the present moment the Postmaster-General and the Treasury are carrying on negotiations through the proper channels to try to find a line on which these terms of transference should be offered, but the Postmaster-General has already given a pledge to the Union of Post Office Workers that when negotiations each a sufficiently concrete stage he will lay the proposals before the representatives of the staff for their criticism and comment. Even then, and after the offer has assumed its final form, it will be open individually to every civil servant to decide whether he accepts that offer or not. If he does not accept it, he will continue with the Post Office, enjoying his present terms and present rights, and nothing can take those away from him.

Mr. BENN: I think we are very much indebted to the Noble Lord for his statement. I do not know whether we have got it quite right. Do I understand that these servants who are presently operating the Post Office wireless have security of tenure even if not taken over by the Communications Company?

Viscount WOLMER indicated assent.

Mr. BENN: That they will not be put out of employment if they do not agree to accept the terms offered by the Communications Company?

Viscount WOLMER: They are civil servants with Civil Service rights.

Mr. BENN: Does that mean that if they do not wish to accept the terms offered by the Communications Company they will still remain civil servants?

Viscount WOLMER: They remain civil servants with all their rights.

Mr. BENN: I am not sure that I understand what the words "civil servant" mean. Do I understand that if these servants are not prepared to accept the terms offered by the Communications Company they none the less remain in the employment and pay of the Post Office?

Viscount WOLMER: That is so.

Mr. MALONE: Are there not in this service a number of unestablished men who can be discharged without any notice?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think there are any unestablished men involved.

Mr. BENN: May we have it quite clear that there are none?

Viscount WOLMER indicated assent.

Mr. BENN: Therefore we understand now that all the persons presently employed in the Post Office wireless service, if they do not care to accept the terms offered, will be, none the less, secure in their employment?

Viscount WOLMER indicated assent.

Mr. BENN: That is a very definite and satisfactory statement. But I would ask a further question. The Noble Lord speaks about terms which are being negotiated for the employés, and he tells us that the Postmaster-General has been actively engaged in watching their interests. With whom has he been negotiating? Will the Noble Lord tell us? I will give way willingly if he will. What an impossible position the Committee is in. I will ask the Postmaster-General now that he has come into the Chamber. In his much regretted absence, the Noble Lord, the Assistant Postmaster-General, has been telling us all about the benevolent activities of the Postmaster-General on behalf of the staff in securing good terms of employment for them. Is that not so? Why the look of surprise on the face of the Postmaster-General? I do not think that there ever was such a spectacle in the House of Commons! There are four separate Ministers, each with different information, such as it is, and each giving different answers,
and each one anxious to conceal something. We are told by the Assistant Postmaster-General that these negotiations have been going on, and I am asking the Postmaster-General with whom has he been negotiating? Is he prepared to give me an answer to that?
We are told that there is no company in existence, and we are told not to ask what the Communications Company is, as there is no such thing before this Bill is passed, and before the financial gentlemen will consent to form a company at all. Now we find that there is such a body, and that the Postmaster-General has been negotiating on behalf of the staff with his body. We cannot compel the Government to answer, but, in the judgment of the public, and in that of their own friends, they are in a somewhat surprising position. I do not know anything about the technical side, but is any staff concerned with the second Atlantic cable? I suppose that every cable has an appropriate staff, but what is to happen to the staff of the second Atlantic cable? Does any of the galaxy on the Front Bench know anything about it? The amusing thing about this second Atlantic cable is that the Financial Secretary has said that the Advisory Committee will never permit the All-Red Route to be broken by the sale of the cable, but, while he was having lunch, the Postmaster-General told us that they were making such a good bargain because the cable was to be sold. Incidentally, the matter arises again in regard to the staff.
I cannot force the right hon. Gentlemen to give answers, but it would be interesting, and I think valuable, which is better than being merely entertained, for us to hear what is the body with whom the negotiations have been made. It is a scandal if negotiations are going on, and the Committee is being denied a, knowledge of them. The gravamen of our case is that all the time there is what is vulgarly called a ramp, a term with which I associate myself, and that the Bill has been so framed as to keep the House of Commons from discussing material points, and to prevent them from having material documents. It is only by occasional disclosures of an indiscreet Under-Secretary that we have any information.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have had one satisfactory statement from the Assistant Postmaster-General with reference to the established civil servants, and I thank him very much for it. They, at any rate, will have some bargaining powers. If they choose they will be able to say to whoever is in charge of this merger, "We do not like your conditions and we will stay on with the Post Office." I am glad to have drawn that assurance from him. Now I wish to ask him a question about a matter in which I take a particular interest, the position of the officers and crews of the cable ships. Certain cable ships are maintained by these three undertakings. I would remark here that I am glad to see the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) is present, because he also will be interested in this, and I hope he will support me in getting justice for these men, as he has supported me before. I believe I am right in saying that the officers and crews of the cable ships are not established civil servants, but that they are appointed under ordinary articles. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) told us that one of the many economies to be carried out would be reducing the cable ships to one. What is to be the position of the masters, officers, engineers and others of the crew of the cable ships? They are highly skilled men, trained for this special work, and, in view of this merger, they will not be able to get similar work with any other company. If they do not like the conditions which are offered to them by this company, they will have to take their chance of going to sea in ordinary passenger liners. Unless there is some safeguard for them, they will be absolutely at the mercy of this new merger.
The Assistant Postmaster-General, when a private Member, took a very great interest in all nautical matters. He was one of the leading lights of the Navy League, and was always talking about what we owe to our sailors, and that kind of thing. I ask him now, what will be the position of these men? Further, I would like to know what is the real position with regard to the so-called redundant cable—that is not his word, it is my word—across the Atlantic. We are told that it is not now needed for strategic purposes, that war has been outlawed and that it is no longer re-
quired. But what will happen to the staff of that cable? Is it supposed that the Post Office will maintain a complete cable staff for a cable which is not required and which the merger company is going to dispose of in some way? There will not be work for those men in the Post Office, because the Post Office will not have any more cables on which to employ them, and you cannot expect honest men to eat the bread of idleness for ever on the staff of the Post Office when there is no work for them to do.
It is not a fair position to put them in. If the Government will insert in the Bill now or on the Report stage some words which will safeguard the position of these people it will be most satisfactory. That is all we ask. If we allow this Bill to go through now, if hon. Gentlemen are whipped out of the Lobbies, the Library and the tea room to vote without having heard the arguments, if it is to be carried by the automatic majority of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, then these people will have no bargaining power at all with these mysterious financiers. The Government will have approved this scheme and that will be the end of it, and these unfortunate men, and especially the unfortunate officers of these ships, will be left in the lurch.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the Committee to seriously consider the matter before they turn down this Amendment. We are asking hon. Members to do something which has already been done in other directions for workmen and officers connected with private and municipal undertakings dealing with electricity. It seems to me that there can be no real argument against providing by Act of Parliament for men who may be displaced and doing for them exactly what we have done for others under similar circumstances. It is not enough for the Assistant Postmaster-General merely to give assent by a nod. We want it in black and white that if a man or woman connected with the Post Office or any other undertaking connected with this merger is injured, some sort of compensation shall be paid for that injury, the same as would be given to a landlord or any other person who suffers through the legislation of this House.
This principle of compensating work-people when big rationalisation schemes
take place is one which Parliament should stand by. Workpeople in the past have objected, and still object, to great combinations and great schemes of rationalisation because those schemes nearly always involve the displacement of men, or the throwing of them out of work for a certain period. Of course, I know I cannot enter into a long argument about that question, but, at any rate, no one in this Committee can controvert that statement. One of the most important questions that is now being discussed by the Peace in Industry Conference between certain groups of employers and the trade unions is the question of compensation for people displaced during the period of transition from one form of industry to another. Surely the employers who are negotiating on this question are not going to be behind what the best employers have already done.
I would point out to the Postmaster-General that one big industrial firm in York has undertaken great changes in its method of production which has displaced a large number of workmen, and they have undertaken a big scheme to protect the workmen who have been displaced. I cannot believe that this Committee will really turn down this Amendment, and I beg the Postmaster-General to consider again the matter. If he is not willing to accept our words, I hope he will give us a definite pledge that if anyone is injured in the public service he shall receive as a right that compensation and consideration which is given in the case of every other industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do that not merely for the sake of those men and women who may be displaced, but in order to set an example to the rest of the employers in the country, and prove to the workmen that at long last they are going to be treated upon an equality with ordinary property.

Mr. TOWNEND: The reply which the Postmaster-General has already given, as to the effect of these proposals on the position of civil servants, does not go far enough; it only deals with a very small proportion of those with whom this Clause is concerned. May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the undertaking, and express the hope that, after listening to what I have to say, he will be able to give the
necessary information to the Assistant Postmaster-General before he replies? I do think that the Committee is entitled to an answer from the Government, which we have not yet had. Merely to ride away by saying that, after the establishment of the merger, the Civil Service status of these people will remain, is not enough. In addition to their status at the moment, a, further point is dealt with in this proposed new Clause, but I do ask for an answer as to what is going to become of the redundant staffs of the Pacific Cable undertaking, the West Indian Cable undertaking, and the Imperial Transatlantic Cable undertaking. It is quite conceivable that, as a result of this merger, every one of those units which now exist will disturb a certain proportion of its staff, and I think that those who are likely to he disturbed are entitled to the protection of the House of Commons, which is going to lay down the conditions that will apply.
As I have already pointed out, the House of Commons on two previous occasions was prepared to impose, both on the railway companies and on private electricity undertakings, compensation Clauses such as we are asking for this afternoon. The Assistant Postmaster-General says, "That is all right; we will give protection to the civil servants," and then sits down. I hope that, before the Committee divides on this question, we shall have something further on that point. This proposed new Clause deals with another point. If, after the merger, the already established civil servants come back to some other form of civil service, while they retain their standard conditions, while they retain for the moment their standard salary—I want to put this particularly to the Noble Lord, because he knows exactly what I mean—is it conceivable that, as a result of the handing over of this valuable property to private enterprise, the status of those who are disturbed is going to be to no small degree endangered? As has been pointed out, the beam wireless service is a modern arm, which offered prospects to a certain section of the Civil Service staff, but, as a result of this scheme, they are going to be denied those prospects.
The Assistant Postmaster-General shakes his head. Perhaps he is unaware
that, in the compensation Clauses which were imposed on the railways, all these points were taken into consideration. Will the Noble Lord go further and say, in the assurance that he gives to the Committee, that, in the event of redundancy being caused by the operation of this Bill—which we anticipate, despite all our endeavours, is going to become an Act—will he guarantee that positions of equal importance, with equal opportunities of promotion, and equal salaries, will be found for these redundant people, and that in no circumstances will their conditions be worsened or their salaries reduced. I think, therefore, before the Division is taken, we are entitled to ask for protection for the private enterprise staff and, on the top of that, an assurance that analogous positions in respect to conditions, salary and prospects are guaranteed to the men in the Civil Service who are disturbed, and that their salaries shall in no circumstances—of course I exclude misconduct — be worsened.

Commander WILLIAMS: I realise that the Clause, as drafted, is absolutely impossible, but, on the other hand, I think when you are, or may be, transferring a considerable number of civil servants, the Government ought to do what an ordinary employer would do under similar circumstances and see that the men will get a reasonable chance when they are transferred. I am not quite certain from the answer of the Noble Lord how many of these men will be transferred and whether there is any reasonable chance of the new companies absorbing the whole of them. If they can absorb the whole of them, obviously there is nothing very much to be considered, but we have heard to-day—and this is really where I was a little anxious in my mind—that one of these cables, with the ship it employs and the men it employs in making and repairing, will in all likelihood not be used very much in the future. Under the circumstances, although the Clause is impossible, I think the Government might before Report put down an Amendment to make it quite clear that they will look after the interests of the men engaged in that work. I am not quite sure whether they are all established men. It would seem from the answer just now that most of them are.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am sure hon. Members opposite must be disturbed at the attitude of the Government. The Noble Lord had no part in the negotiations in the railway amalgamation, but he knows that private negotiations took place and the Government of the day, although they had no control nominally over private enterprise, realised straight away that they dare not come to the House with provision made for compensation to directors and officials without making a similar provision for the humblest man in the service. They were not civil servants nor Government employ és, but it could not be done. They would not have been affected had it not been for the action of the Government and, therefore, the Government said, "We have a responsibility to these people." What is the difference in this case? The Noble Lord says, "None." Then why not do as was done then? If, as the Noble Lord says, and as I admit, there is no difference, then why the difference in treatment in the Act of Parliament? We are entitled to ask why the change, and we are entitled to ask Members on both sides of the House when they vote on this Amendment, how they will explain what the Noble Lord cannot explain. If there is no difference, they have to reconcile the situation of Parliament deciding in one case and refusing to decide in this case in precisely the same way as they did in the Railways Act. Take the answer as applied to the Civil Service. As I understand the position, the mechanical engineers are mainly affected. They are not really civil servants, but at least they are treated as civil servants, and yet the answer of the Noble Lord would not even cover them.
I want to know what is going to be the attitude of Parliament? The largest body of employés, in this country, the trade unions, are discussing this problem at the present time. Whatever else may happen, amalgamations are inevitable. These amalgamations must result in the displacement of large numbers of employés for the purpose of efficiency, economy, and for all the other reasons that one might develop. The best employers all say to us: "Yes, it is inevitable. It is no good running away from it. It has to be faced, but there is an obligation upon us to see that this efficiency is not brought about at the
expense of the starvation of the individual." And they have to make provision. That is what the ordinary private employer is facing to-day and doing voluntarily. Yet, when a Government proposal, and a proposal where the Empire is drawn in, is put forward, nothing is proposed to be done.
Up to now the argument on the opposite side has been that this is a great Imperial question, that this is something in which Canada, Africa, and our other Dominions are all vitally affected. I wonder what any hon. or right hon. Member would say if he had to face the Dominions and say to the Dominions: "This is an admited benefit to you. This is a Government scheme. These great Imperial advantages which we are giving to you provide that those on the top shall be looked after but for those at the bottom no provision whatever will be made." What an answer he would get from the Dominions! This is called an Imperial policy; it is called a policy in the interest of the Empire. I ask the Noble Lord to face this fact. There cannot be any advantages from amalgamation unless someone is going to be adversely affected. It is no good pretending otherwise. It is impossible now as it was impossible in regard to the railways. On the railways, there are 70,000 less employés, there to-day than there were under the old system prior to grouping. Provision had to be made to meet the situation and Parliament inserted Clauses to deal with the situation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the same words?

Mr. THOMAS: The words are copied. The words that we are now asking this Committee to accept are precisely the words in the present Act of Parliament. Therefore, when we divide on this issue, as we shall, when we ask for a Division we shall ask Members on all sides of the House to realise that it is not put forward as a mere party issue. Just as hon. Members would claim the right to say that any individual has to be protected, so we say that the principle shall apply to the humblest individual. We do not discriminate here whether the individual be a director or a manager or anybody else. We do not particularise in any degree. As the Noble Lord said, as far as his first observation which was only
observed by myself is concerned, he saw no difference at all between this ease and the railway case. I ask him now to tell us why the same words taken from an Act of Parliament which a Coalition Government, of which he was a Member, accepted in the case of a private undertaking should not also be applicable in this particular case?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was present when I made my short statement about half-an-hour ago, or he would not have made such a comparison. The difference between the postal servants and the railway servants is that the postal servants are civil servants. I should like to repeat and to make quite clear what I said, that every postal servant has full Civil Service rights, and those rights will not be interfered with.

Mr. MONTAGUE: What about the cable ships?

Viscount WOLMER: All men serving on cable ships will be in exactly the same position as any other postal servant. I can give an undertaking to the Committee that no postal servant will have his conditions worsened by the merger that is to take place. When the Communications Company is formed, an offer will be made to the postal servants as to whether they would like to take service with the Communications Company. There is no idea of compulsory transfer. The New Clause which hon. Members opposite are moving involves compulsory transfer. It deals with postal servants as of they were mere bits of property who can be transferred at will. We cannot accept any proposal of that sort. We simply say that a perfectly fair offer will be made to the postal servants; if they do not like to take it they need not take it, and they will still be able to continue in full enjoyment of their present rights as employés of the Postmaster-General.

Mr. W. BAKER: I have heard charges of unfairness in this House, and I have lived to this day to see how a Noble Lord can be unfair. When this new Clause was moved, I explained, in explicit terms, exactly how it happened that in the necessity to amalgamate three Amendments into a New Clause, in order to meet the Ruling of the Chair, we had to use the word "shall," whereas in the original Amendments one contained the word "may." Therefore, for the Noble Lord to try to make a point of that sort, at the end of a very heated speech, is not only unfair but a great deal worse. The Noble Lord unintentionally or intention ally is misleading the Committee. While the Debate has been going on in formation has been handed to me to the definite effect that the majority of the Post Office staff employed on engineering work in relation to the cable and wireless services of the Post Office are Unestablished men, and are liable to dismissal at a week's notice.

Mr. BENN: Is that true?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can we have a reply? Is that true?

Mr. THOMAS: This is very important, because it destroys absolutely the Noble Lord's promises. Can the Noble Lord say whether these people are subject to a week's notice, or not?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We promise that no unestablished man will be displaced, and that every established man will preserve his rights.

Mr. BAKER rose—

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 99.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bennett, A. J.
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Berry, Sir George
Buchan, John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Ként, Dove.)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H, (Ox. Unlv.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanasittart
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Balniel, Lord
Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brldgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.


Barnett. Major Sir Richard
Briscoe, Richard George
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Beckett, Sir Gorvase (Leeds, N.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clayton, G. C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major Sir William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Lamb, J Q.
Sandon, Lord


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Looker. Herbert William
Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton. A. N.


Drewe, C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine. C.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ellis, R. G.
Maclntyre, Ian
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Ford, Sir p. J.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Forrest. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Malone, Major P. B.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Ganzonl. Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grenfell. Edward C. (City of London)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grotrlan, H. Brent
Morden. Col. W. Grant
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morelng, Captain A. H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wells, S. R.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hammersley, S. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pennefather, Sir John
Windsor-Cilve. Lieut.-Colonel George


Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Withers, John James


Haslam, Henry C.
Perring, Sir William George
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pildltch, Sir Philip
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)



Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Captain Bowyer.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.



NOES.


Baker, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)


Bellamy, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Benn, Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Sexton, James


Brlant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd)
Smillie, Robert


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Smith. Rennle (Penlstone)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Stamford. T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Dunnlco, H.
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Vlant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Goslling, Harry
Palln, John Henry
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Poneonby, Arthur
Weil wood J




Whitelev. W.
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Windsor, Walter
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


Williams, T. {York, Don Valley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 169.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[4.7 p.m.


Baker, Walter
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hardle, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gatesheo)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bellamy, A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Wedgwood
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Briant. Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith. Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Lee, F.
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Vlant, S. P.


Day, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Murnin, H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnlco. H.
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Palln, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whitelev. W.


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Elliot, Major Walter E.
James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ellis, R. G.
Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Kennedy, A. R, (Preston)


Bennett, A. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Berry, Sir George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kinloch. Cooke, Sir Clement


Betterton, Henry B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lamb, I. Q.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Forrest, W.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'tm


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William


Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere


Briscoe, Richard George
Ganzonl, Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brocklebank, C. E. R,
Gates, Percy
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Maclntyre, I.


Buchan, John
Grant, Sir J. A.
McLean, Major A.


Cayzer, Sir c. (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macqulsten, F. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Malone, Major P. B.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hammersley, S. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Captain D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Rye. F. G.
Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Salmon, Major I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandon, Lord
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Morden, Col. w. Grant
Savery, S. S.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Warrender, Sir Victor


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Skelton, A. N.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C)
Wells, S. R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smithert, Waldron
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perring, Sir William George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Pildltch, Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Withers, John fames


Power, Sir John Cecll
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Tasker, R. Inlgo.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ropner, Major L.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace,


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

It being after Four of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 10th December.